Afterwards, I took a drive with my son - he videotaped and I measured with the odometer, and found out that along a 3.4km stretch of that city road (Yonge Street northbound north of Big Bay), there was only ONE speed limit sign. So, a couple of questions:
- the Officer clearly perjured himself (he also made some other false statements that I can prove) ... on appeal, can I have his testimony (the only evidence the Prosecutor produced) thrown out based on the fact that he was an unreliable witness
- is the lack of minimum adequate signage (in line with what he testified in court) as required under RRO Reg 615 to the Highway Traffic Act a basis to have the case thrown out, and can I introduce this evidence on appeal, given that he brought it up in the initial hearing?
I did some other checking in our city (Barrie, for anyone else who has been recently caught), and EVERY street that I checked didn't have the required minimum signage. On one street (Anne Street South heading north), there was a stretch of 3,400 meters without a single speed limit sign. This is clearly a pervasive problem in Barrie - does anyone see a potential for a class action lawsuit against the City by drivers that have been caught up in this web over the years?
Under section 128 of the HTA there are several statuary maximum speeds that donÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢t require the posting of any signs.
(2) Where the maximum rate of speed for a highway in a built-up area more than 1,500 metres in length is that prescribed by subsection 128 (1) of the Act, speed limit signs shall be erected on the highway not more than 900 metres apart. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 615, s. 2 (2).
(3) Where the maximum rate of speed for a highway in a built-up area 1,500 metres or less in length is that prescribed by subsection 128 (1) of the Act, speed limit signs shall be erected on the highway not more than 300 metres apart. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 615, s. 2 (3).
Am I misreading something here?
(d) the rate of speed prescribed for motor vehicles on a highway in accordance with subsection (2), (5), (6), (6.1) or (7);
128 (1) a,b,c are "normative", as it were, vs. "prescriptive".
It would be nice if our laws and regulations could be easily understood by us mere mortals, but that's a story for another day.
It still doesn't explain why the Officer perjured himself by claiming there were speed limit signs every 900m, when in fact there was only one sign over a 3km stretch.
Thanks for the clearer explanation.
It's not really unbelievable, it actually makes a lot of sense in terms of cost savings, etc.mikemish wrote:So a City NEVER needs to post a speed limit if it is a 50 zone? Unbelievable.
Not at all trying to be snarky or trolling here... just wondering, as a former driving instructor, how it come to pass that you didn't know this fact. Where I worked, the 50/80 rules were discussed several times in classroom, and our instructors reinforced it on the road. Was this not addressed when you learned to drive, or perhaps you didn't learn in Ontario? Just wondering...