Red light camera ticket for turning right

If I remember correctly, after mailing back the ticket with the option I picked. I waited about a week to go online and check the status and date of the court date. All the information asked is on your ticket. During the court date (ZOOM), I asked about early resolution. This was in Mississauga, Peel Region.
 
I asked for early resolution because I wanted to talk to the prosecutor and ask them what their angle was? Evidence? Anyways, going to trial now so I have asked for disclosure to see the evidence. I have absolutely no problem going to trial.
 
I got a photo radar ticket re too fast in a school zone. Guilty, paid the fine, no points on license.

Same in Calgary in a rented car. Guilty, paid the fine, no license impact.

For me not worth the time and effort, plus zero impact on my license and insurance.

Speeding, officer wrote it up as 109 in an 80 vs. the actual of 114. Minor vs major ticket. Caught a break, but went to court hoping officer would not show up, he did and I lost. Judge asked prosecutor if he wanted to reinstate the ticket to 114, he looked at me, smiled, paused a bit to rub it in ............ and then said no, 109 it was. From what I observed re insurance no impact on this first ticket.

I'm only going to fight a ticket that has the potential to impact my license or insurance rates.
 
I got a photo radar ticket re too fast in a school zone. Guilty, paid the fine, no points on license.

Same in Calgary in a rented car. Guilty, paid the fine, no license impact.

For me not worth the time and effort, plus zero impact on my license and insurance.

Speeding, officer wrote it up as 109 in an 80 vs. the actual of 114. Minor vs major ticket. Caught a break, but went to court hoping officer would not show up, he did and I lost. Judge asked prosecutor if he wanted to reinstate the ticket to 114, he looked at me, smiled, paused a bit to rub it in ............ and then said no, 109 it was. From what I observed re insurance no impact on this first ticket.

I'm only going to fight a ticket that has the potential to impact my license or insurance rates.
That is the great part about our justice system, you can choose to simply pay the fine or you can challenge it.
 
I got disclosure finally. There is no video evidence included, just the same images that are on the ticket and a bunch of statements that the officer signed and states are correct blah blah. Funny if you google him, his social media states he is a photography enthusiast! Anyways not sure which angle I am going to approach this one, might just simply ask the judge some questions for clarification and go from there.
 
It appears 1.8 seconds elapsed from the time of the first image behind the white line to mid turn. Is that the basis for the time stopped and proceeding to turn? Therefore the officer concludes that is not enough time to stop completely and proceed? Or do they try to interpret brake lights and vehicular traffic flow for timing? Basically I am looking for the actual proof or evidence to conclude there was no complete stop. If there was video it would be simple but because it is static images it is difficult. In the first image it appears there is a full and complete stop. If you go by the vehicles travelling through the intersection it appears some time elapsed during the stop. Is this a judgement call on the officers part or backed up by an actual fact.
The Camera knows when the light turned red then the "elapsed time" is when it detects the vehicle crossing the white STOP line. The reviewing officer has NO input on the timing it is all automated by the camera.
 
If you choose option 2 which is early resolution and the matter does not get resolved, how do you then exercise your option for trial? Do I check both option 2 and 3 when I send in the form. Only asking because in the past I have only ever checked box 3. In this case I would like to talk to the prosecutor first just to see what he has to say.
Crowns generally will not deal on Red light tickets. they are considered "Absolute Liability" offences meaning it is up to the accused to prove they are not guilty as opposed to regular offences which require the crown to prove the offence. The Supreme Court has ruled that the existence of the photo is absolute proof of the offence.

You have a better chance of arguing it in front of the JP, you "may" get a sympathetic JP....lol
 
Also, if there's video, bear in mind that you have to stop before the stop line. A stop past the stop line doesn't count as a stop. Not 100% on interpretation but this probably means having any part of your vehicle past the stop line. It's unlikely that the camera is positioned to allow this to be judged definitively, but if your front wheels are visible past the stop line, that's bad.

Most drivers get this wrong. Legally, if the stop line is in a dumb place, too far back from the junction such that you can't see what's coming, you have to do the legally-required-to-fulfill-your-obligation stop before the stop line, then pull ahead for the do-what-has-to-be-done stop. Yes, it's stupid, and it means the design of the junction is wrong.
There's an odd intersection near me, a four way stop, but one set of bars is so far from the sidewalk line they are deceiving. I expect to get rear ended one day because the lines are contrary to common sense.

From the MOT:


Diagram 3-5 shows the red car, stop line, sidewalk line and intersection line. I assume that no part of the vehicle or load (IE 20-foot 2X4 on roof racks) should cross the stop line before stopping.

How many SUV drivers can accurately judge the location of their front bumper?
 
If there are pedestrians, I will stop before the stop line. When no pedestrians are around, most of the time I stop closer to the curb line. I very rarely do the double stop that I am supposed to do.
Once you have made the mandatory stop at the stop line, wouldn't you be allowed to creep forward cautiously and enter the intersection as conditions allow?
 
I got disclosure finally. There is no video evidence included, just the same images that are on the ticket and a bunch of statements that the officer signed and states are correct blah blah. Funny if you google him, his social media states he is a photography enthusiast! Anyways not sure which angle I am going to approach this one, might just simply ask the judge some questions for clarification and go from there.
Hopefully he's not a Photoshop enthusiast.
 
Adding to the saga ...........
I was also the recipient of the similar "surprise" in the mail, a red light camera ticket!
"Surprise" because it wasn't me that was driving the vehicle - however it is registered in my name, so I have to deal with it.
The wording: The photographs show the vehicle approaching the intersection when the redlight was on for 0.8 seconds. The vehicle proceeded through the intersection when the light had been red for 2.2 seconds.
The photographs: #1 shows the vehicle approaching the intersection [and not yet in the intersection!] #2 shows the rear of the vehicle [clearly the brake lights are on!]
The driver's explanation: Stopped at the intersection [brake lights on] and proceeded to make a right turn 1.4 seconds [2.2 minus 0.8] when it was safe to do so. There is no notice stating "no right turn on red"

My options are [1] pay $325 [2] meet the prosecutor for an early resolution [3] take the case to court.

Please help me by suggesting my next course of action!
Thank you.
 
Adding to the saga ...........
I was also the recipient of the similar "surprise" in the mail, a red light camera ticket!
"Surprise" because it wasn't me that was driving the vehicle - however it is registered in my name, so I have to deal with it.
The wording: The photographs show the vehicle approaching the intersection when the redlight was on for 0.8 seconds. The vehicle proceeded through the intersection when the light had been red for 2.2 seconds.
The photographs: #1 shows the vehicle approaching the intersection [and not yet in the intersection!] #2 shows the rear of the vehicle [clearly the brake lights are on!]
The driver's explanation: Stopped at the intersection [brake lights on] and proceeded to make a right turn 1.4 seconds [2.2 minus 0.8] when it was safe to do so. There is no notice stating "no right turn on red"

My options are [1] pay $325 [2] meet the prosecutor for an early resolution [3] take the case to court.

Please help me by suggesting my next course of action!
Thank you.
[brake lights on] doesn't equal stopped
 
re: brake lights on doesn't mean stopped.
The static snapshot of the vehicle with the brake lights on and not in the intersection is one of the two photos provided (the other is of the vehicle approaching the intersection).
Brake lights on, in a static pic can equate to "vehicle stopped".
Would you and/or the prosecutor reckon that the pic is open to interpretation and thus not confirmed proof?
 
re: brake lights on doesn't mean stopped.
The static snapshot of the vehicle with the brake lights on and not in the intersection is one of the two photos provided (the other is of the vehicle approaching the intersection).
Brake lights on, in a static pic can equate to "vehicle stopped".
Would you and/or the prosecutor reckon that the pic is open to interpretation and thus not confirmed proof?
I thought the entering pic also had radar speed measurement? That mostly resolves the was it stopped question although you could still try to challenge the validity of the speed data.
 
Just my opinion.
The court would intrepret not stopping at the red light as going pass the marked stop line in the pavement.
So if your car overshoot the marked stop line, come to complete stop and reverse behind the marked stop line. You would still get a ticket.
This sort of things are the courts bread and butter!
 
There is no speed measurement quoted, just this "the redlight was on for 0.8 seconds. The vehicle proceeded through the intersection when the light had been red for 2.2 seconds"
Since there is no pic of the vehicle actually past the cross walk or in the intersection, why wouldn't the Traffic Analyst give credence that the vehicle had stopped and then made a right turn, after all the right turn on red is allowed and the time gap between 0.8 secs and 2.2 secs bears this out.

There is something that I am missing, the Traffic Analyst must know more to issue the ticket.

There are two schools of thought, pay up or challenge.
I would have paid up if there was definite proof that I could see/understand.
Perhaps, I should ask for a meeting with the prosecutor and I don't want to go in without understanding 'cos then Mr. Prosecutor would walk all over me. His job is to secure a conviction.

Guys, help me here - how should the conversation with the prosecutor go?

Thanks!
 
imo the first pic at 2.2 and second pic at 0.8. The red light camera determines that the location/distance of the car at 0.8 would be impossible if the car stopped at the marked stop line at 2.2 seconds. So if the car did stop at the marked stop line it would impossible to accelerate to car location/distance at 0.8 sec. If the second pic is for example at 3.0 sec then it would be enough time to stop and be at the location at 3.0 sec. Something like that?

I don't understand why/how the red light camera goes off before the car pass the marked stop line? It's if the red light camera know before hand your not going to stop.

I got ding twice making at right on Britannia Rd West to RiverGrove in Mississauga. F!

You should contact the prosecutor before early resolution court date. If you find out you going to loose the case. Tell them the fine will cause fainancial hardship also ask if you can do monthly payments. Just make sure if you go the monthly payment route it doesn't affect your license plate renewal.
 
Apparently in Peel, one can request RLC images via email.
I have put in a request for photos that actually show the car crossing the white line and a speed reading as proof that the car never stopped.
Meanwhile, (as justride has also suggested) I will request an early meeting with Mr. Prosecutor.

(I don't mind paying the fine but please show me clear evidence that there was actually an infraction)
 
Back
Top Bottom