Different speed limits on each direction of the road

tyro wrote:

I don't really get your reasoning. You admitted you were speeding, regardless of whether the limit was 50 or 60 at that point. You admitted you knew that the sign was different on both sides of the road and that your speed was in excess of both of these rates. You want to use the defense that you thought you were going 72 km/hr in a 60 km/hr zone, so you are basically admitting you are guilty.

Dont try to apply common sense to the Highway Traffic Act, it simply doesnt work.

Right or wrong, the OP has a possible valid defence. Whether hes actually guilty of speeding is irrelevant in the Courts eyes if the charge itself is improper. Hes entitled to try his defence, and if hes successful, maybe that will actually be motivation for the City to fix the improper signage to prevent future confusion.

Stanton wrote:

Dont try to apply common sense to the Highway Traffic Act, it simply doesnt work.

Right or wrong, the OP has a possible valid defence. Whether hes actually guilty of speeding is irrelevant in the Courts eyes if the charge itself is improper. Hes entitled to try his defence, and if hes successful, maybe that will actually be motivation for the City to fix the improper signage to prevent future confusion.

This is exactly how I feel. the post by tyro you responded to doesn't take into account i'm not walking into court telling them i was speeding at 72km/h in a 50 or 60 zone. I'm going in proving the ticket he gave me saying its a properly posted 50km/h zone when its really an improperly posted 60km/h zone.

My speed at the time is not what i'm worrying about. It's a real piss off that in an area where the signage is messed up and its a transition zone from 50 or 60 to an 80km/h zone thats where a cop hangs out.

well tomorrow i'm going to go take pictures of all the speed limit signs.

i've attached the officers notes i got from the prosecutor can anyone figure out the stuff thats not self explanitory?

gabe wrote:

It's a real piss off that in an area where the signage is messed up and its a transition zone from 50 or 60 to an 80km/h zone thats where a cop hangs out.

there are absolutely NO transition zones when the speed limit increases. Just b/c one can see a sign or knows about a sign 300m or 1000m ahead does not make it legal to just stomp on the throttle... The limit begins AT the sign which will say "begins"

Transition zones are used when going from higher speeds to lower speeds and everyone of those work properly...at sign saying *blank* zone ahead and if a vehicle is at the speed limit and dont touch fuel the vehicle will slow to the proper speed at the "begins" sign.

hwybear wrote:

gabe wrote:

It's a real piss off that in an area where the signage is messed up and its a transition zone from 50 or 60 to an 80km/h zone thats where a cop hangs out.

there are absolutely NO transition zones when the speed limit increases. Just b/c one can see a sign or knows about a sign 300m or 1000m ahead does not make it legal to just stomp on the throttle... The limit begins AT the sign which will say "begins"

Transition zones are used when going from higher speeds to lower speeds and everyone of those work properly...at sign saying *blank* zone ahead and if a vehicle is at the speed limit and dont touch fuel the vehicle will slow to the proper speed at the "begins" sign.

i agree with you for sure regarding the fact of what ever the speed limit is, is what the speed limit is until you pass a sign that says XXkm/h begins. My point was just that the cop hangs out at an area where the speed limit goes up, because people are more likely to be caught speeding due to the fact there is a speed limit increase ahead.

From a business point of view of the police it will ensure a higher % of tickets earning them more money. from a public safety point of view unless the road conditions are bad or someone is speeding recklessly , i don't think 20 over is dangerous, although I know the law is the law and if you break it no matter what the conditions are you are at fault.

just out of curiosity if you are going the speed limit, say on the 401 100km/h, and the road conditions are horrible ice or snow, could a cop give you a ticket for speeding? or would they have to give you the ticket for something else, like careless driving?

You could only be charged with speeding if you exceeded the actual posted limit. Driving too fast for the conditions could result in a careless driving charge, though there would have to be sufficient evidence to support this.

from what i have right now from the officers notes, there is nothing that shows his radar test before and after his shift. Also he wrote nothing regarding traffic around me at the time he pulled me over.

if when i receive what should be proper disclosure, if it does not include notes showing that the radar gun was properly tested before and after the time he pulled me over, or it does not indicate whether there were other cars around at the time, should I go ahead and use one of those as my defense?

what are some common types of defense that actually work in speeding ticket cases? I have a little over a month before my trial date, and i'm trying to figure out what exactly my best defense would be.

also if i don't get the full disclosure until a few days before court can I re-schedule my court date? and maybe by re-scheduling a few times i can create confusion and maybe the officer might get miss informed or confused and not show up to court on the correct day? i'm just trying to think of things to do. Maybe this doesn't make sense or maybe it has been tried before, if anyone has any input it would be appreciated.

Take a look on CanLII. There are several cases which are pretty clear that the testing times must be noted. Can't recall them right now but that should help your case...

as of right now what I have going for me is that the opposite direction on the road has posted signs that say I was in a 60km/h zone. I'm not sure how to go about fighting not the fact i was speeding but that the charge was improper.

should i try to create a motion to quash the ticket because of improper charge before the plea of not guilty or should I plead not guilty then when I get to cross examine the officer ask him questions regarding if he know what the speed limit is in that zone?

basically i'm fighting the fact its not a 50km/h zone. should I go try to get something done before I enter a plea or enter the not guilty plea and go through the proceedings regularly and make the officer look silly like he doesn't even know what the speed limit is in an area he's handing out speeding tickets?

Linky:

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight. ... 26961.html

Lots of references to most of the major speed cases

gabe wrote:

basically i'm fighting the fact its not a 50km/h zone. should I go try to get something done before I enter a plea or enter the not guilty plea and go through the proceedings regularly and make the officer look silly like he doesn't even know what the speed limit is in an area he's handing out speeding tickets?

won't make the officer look silly at all....it is plainly visible and properly posted as a 50km/hr zone in the direction you were travelling!!

if anything, once someone learns of the discrepancy in the other direction for the 200m or whatever distance the 60km sign in the opposite direction will be changed out to a 50km sign

hwybear wrote:

gabe wrote:

basically i'm fighting the fact its not a 50km/h zone. should I go try to get something done before I enter a plea or enter the not guilty plea and go through the proceedings regularly and make the officer look silly like he doesn't even know what the speed limit is in an area he's handing out speeding tickets?

won't make the officer look silly at all....it is plainly visible and properly posted as a 50km/hr zone in the direction you were travelling!!

if anything, once someone learns of the discrepancy in the other direction for the 200m or whatever distance the 60km sign in the opposite direction will be changed out to a 50km sign

The key words you stated are "in the direction you were travelling!!" If you don't think when I tell a JP I travel the road daily and know its a 60km/h road on the Northbound side, and I was confused because there are no speed limit signs indicating the speed should be any different, on the Southbound side of the road within the 60km/h zone you are crazy. At worst I'm going to get charged with doing 12km/h over the speed limit. I'm fine with that.

I know speeding is a strict liability offence and I practiced due diligence by ensuring I was not traveling at an excessive speed for a 60km/h zone.

As for your comments about the sign discrepancy first off I've written down a list of all 80km/h zone I can think of in the city. Not one of 80km/h zones is preceded by a 50km/h zone they are all 60km/h zones, that transition to 80km/h.

If anything happens as a matter of this case the 60km/h speed limit signs will be properly posted for the Southbound lanes, due to the reasoning above. No where will you find an 80km/h zone transition directly to a 50km/h zone, that not safe due to a drastic difference in high to low speeds.

gabe wrote:

No where will you find an 80km/h zone transition directly to a 50km/h zone, that not safe due to a drastic difference in high to low speeds.

there are hundreds of 80-50 zones.

County Rd 46 (South Woodslee), just street view near 1612 County rd 46, South Woodslee, can see both signs 50 and the 80, plus that area also adds in a community safe zone in the 50....continue east and another same thing is at Comber 80 drops to 50

hwybear wrote:

gabe wrote:

No where will you find an 80km/h zone transition directly to a 50km/h zone, that not safe due to a drastic difference in high to low speeds.

there are hundreds of 80-50 zones.

County Rd 46 (South Woodslee), just street view near 1612 County rd 46, South Woodslee, can see both signs 50 and the 80, plus that area also adds in a community safe zone in the 50....continue east and another same thing is at Comber 80 drops to 50

this is all great but that area is not within the city of Windsor. I meant within the city. Out in the county where traffic is much less dense it wouldn't make as big of a safety concern.

There is no due diligence defence for speeding.

i received disclosure for my speeding 72 in a 50. i have posted what i received. a single page with a few lines in point form. no where on the page did it state his radar equipment was tested prior and/or after i was stopped.

if its not on the disclosure when in trial can the officer verbally state yes the radar was tested before and after traffic stop? the stop happened at 8:48am on a saturday morning.I learned it was a veteran traffic cop in the city who gave me the ticket. is it reasonable to think maybe he didn't test it before he gave me the ticket and thats why there is no notes of radar testing?

An experienced traffic officer probably would have tested the radar before and after your stop, but they still need to record the fact in their notes. In my experience Courts will not simply accept an officers testimony about testing if its not also in their notes (in short, not in the notes, didnt happen). This may be an oversight and notes relating to testing were left out of disclosure package, or maybe the officer did forget to record the tests.

Stanton wrote:

An experienced traffic officer probably would have tested the radar before and after your stop, but they still need to record the fact in their notes. In my experience Courts will not simply accept an officers testimony about testing if its not also in their notes (in short, not in the notes, didnt happen). This may be an oversight and notes relating to testing were left out of disclosure package, or maybe the officer did forget to record the tests.

so how do i find out whether the notes relating to testing were left out of disclosure or not? I sent a disclosure form to the prosecutors office that cited R. v. Stinchcombe, 1991 CANLII 45 (S.C.C.), and requested all disclosure. i've attached a copy of the disclosure requestion i sent.

so in what direction do i go now? do i have to ask specifically for notes relating to the radar testing? and who exactly do I have to ask for this? also if this is a reason that could get me off the ticket what steps do i have to take if I try to use the fact the radar wasn't tested prior to my traffic stop at 8:48am saturday morning as a defense.

If you bring that to court and there is still something missing, IMO you are good for a stay. Something being testing notes or other info you would require to mount a full defense.

Reflections wrote:

If you bring that to court and there is still something missing, IMO you are good for a stay. Something being testing notes or other info you would require to mount a full defense.

but what i'm still unsure of is how can i find out if any of the information such as the officers radar test has been left out of the disclosure.

i don't want to walk into court with this idea of his radar testing notes not being disclosed to me and they make me look stupid by the officer just saying yes it was tested verbally and maybe even producing some notes that weren't disclosed to me.

also how exactly do i go about trying to get a stay? what do i say to the justice and when? if the stay is dismissed or denied what happens next? i really want to be a close to 100% sure as possible the stay will be granted before I go in trying to get this.

my court date is December 9, 2011. thanks in advance

i found this case R. v. Zack, [1999] O.J. No. 5747 (Ont. C.J.)

Justice Duncan stated "In this day of full disclosure it cannot be an acceptable explanation for a police officer to say 'I did not note it because I would remember it. It is necessary for the officer to at least somewhere…put the significant observation he made…the absence of the questioned observations in his notebook lead to the conclusion that those observations were not, in fact, made at the time but are perhaps something that over the course of time the officer has come to believe that he saw"

if in the officers notes there is no recording of radar being tested before and after my traffic stop, this would mean if i ask the officer if the radar device was tested according to the manual before and after my traffic stop occurred and his answer is yes, i could then reference this case in which a justice states an officer can't not note things because he would remember it.

also i can't find on CanLII a document of this case. Many of the cases on the site reference this case but I can't find it. If anyone has a link or can direct me to it I would appreciate it .

would referencing this case make the decision binding in my trial because its a lower court?

thanks

well today i had my trial, which wasn't really a trial because I was expecting to agree to 65km/h in a 50km/h zone.

this is what happened. prosecutor called my name and started by directly telling the justice that the officer who gave me the ticket was not able to make it to court today due to illness, and he wanted to have the trial re-scheduled.

the justice asked me if I have anything to say about that, basically I said I took time off work to go to court today and its not easy for me to take time off. He said because it was illness it's enough reason for the him to grant the prosecutors request to have the trial re-scheduled. At that point I was pissed, officer doesn't show and there going to re-schedule on me...B.S.

I had the paper that the prosecutor wrote the 65/50 lesser charge on, so I showed it to him, and the prosecutor then told the justice we have made an agreement for 65 in a 50, went through the whole thing, guilty yes, da da da da da, charge was entered as a guilty plea to 65km/h in a 50km/h zone.

I'm sure in most cases the justice would grant the new trial due to illness, but would there have been a way to try to convince him otherwise? Or is officer illness 99.9% of the time a legitimate reason to reschedule a trial?

In my experience JPs typically will allow the requests, since illnesses are considered something unforeseen.

Stanton wrote:

In my experience JPs typically will allow the requests, since illnesses are considered something unforeseen.

just out of curiosity...how do you think most JP's would react if I would have asked that since the officer was ill and could not make the scheduled court date, if I can request he provide a doctors note upon re-scheduling of the trial to ensure his illness was sever enough to miss a trial. Since the officer gets paid to goto trial and I have to take more time off work thus costing me more money all the while i'm still the innocent party.

Would such a request be granted to me?

gabe wrote:

Would such a request be granted to me?

Wouldn't be granted.