I was recently ticketed in Barrie in a pemanently-posted 40 kph zone. It is possibly the only permanently-posted 40 kph zone in the entire jurisdiction (the rest being time-of-day enforced around schools etc) so, not surprisingly, its also a posted CSZ. The reading was taken with a LIDAR measurement device and I was shown the device display 1st thing upon stopping road-side. Upon running my numbers, the officer would have seen that my 30+ year-old driving record is very good and DEFINITELY not-indicative of habitual speeding and/or reckless driving. He none the less issued a ticket, seemingly for the maximum permissible fine. I've lived nearby for 10+ years and am not opposed to the existence of the zone I was stopped in nor its close supervision, as I have two younger children who will soon begin traveling on their own around the neighborhood etc. Although the issuing officer identified himself as a full-time traffic cop (and thus will likely show in-court if-needed) I plan on choosing option 3 and fighting the ticket as I like many others am concerned about the black eye on my otherwise-good record , insurance rates etc. As I tick off the "Option 3" box on my ticket, and prepare to mail it to court (is that a good idea?) was hoping someone could answer a couple of questions regarding the ticket itself and possible arguments/defences I am considering. 1. Although my ticket doesn't seem to indicate such and, since the issuing officer said nothing about, it appears I may be on the hook for Demerits, if the fine sticks. How can I find out? 2. Does the HTA rule on the requirements for, and deployment of. roadside traffic signs? Is it a requirement that all Reduced Speed Zones (RSZ's) be additionally-signed with "Reduced Speed Ahead" (RSA) warning signs on the approaches? Although I can imagine it would be fiscally-beneficial for municipalities to not warn drivers of RSZ's, based on the ensuing increase in speed fines that would likely be handed out, I would think the safety issue alone (i,.e. drivers hammering on brakes as they frantically try to slow down upon entering an RSZ they were not warned about) would be sufficient cause for making RSA signs mandatory. Based on what I've seen elsewhere around Barrie and, as nice as the folks up here might be, I doubt the City would waste taxpayer's money installing RSA signs on the approaches of virtually all their other RSZ's, unless they were required to (as indeed it appears they have). Likely outcome if I'm successful in arguing the RSZ I was ticketed in, is non-compliant? 3. Using info from Google Streetview I can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the issuing officer had line-of-sight to my vehicle while I was still in a 50 kph posted speed zone, well before I entered the CSZ and the 40 kph speed zone. Coupling that with info I obtained from the City of Barrie official website, I'm able to establish that the advance line-of-sight distance was at-least 100m and that 10 secs or more would likely have elapsed before I in-fact entered the area where I purpotedly sped. Do I have a snowball's chance of arguing that the issuing officer could have acquired/recorded my speed outside the 40 kph zone and the CSZ? Other than verbal rebuttal (his word against mine) would the officer likely have indisputable evidence he could produce, to definitively argue away that possibility? If not, is the possibility alone, enough to justify reasonable doubt? If the judge/JP buys it, do I risk getting fined instead for 66 in a 50 zone, and no CSZ? And what about the Demerits I possibly stood to get? 4. It turns out that, just before being pulled over, I had stopped at a business approx 150 m from the beginning of the CSZ/40 zone and, moments before I alegedly sped, I had in-fact just entered the roadway from that business's parking lot (i.e. standing start). I drive a 100 hp 4-cylinder compact car with 200k milleage, so it doesn't take an expert to understand that I would litterally have to stand on the accelerator for the whole 150m run-up to the beginning of the CSZ/40 zone, in order just to get to 66 kph (and yes I did go back and test/confirm this theory when the cops weren't watching). Shortly after checking my speed (my car jumps into 3rd at almost exactly 50 kph and I instinctively lay off the accelerator when I'm on city streets) I distinctly remember seeing up in the distance, the issuing officer walking into the street in my path (presumably preparing to flag me down). Indeed I can't be sure if I had even yet entered the 40 kph zone which. I suppose, plays into the officer having captured my speed "prematurely" as in point (3) above, and that much time, possibly 15 to 20 secs, elapsed before I finally arrived where the officer stood. In-fact at the moment the issuing officer walked out into the roadway, I was still so far away that I had no idea who he was (using an unmarked cruiser and wearing a non-descript safety vest over his jacket); Because he didn't have his hat on (no reasons I could find why so) it wasn't until I was practically at roadside that I could tell. He did not put his hat on nor did he make any attempt to further identify himself as a police officer prior to or after flagging me down. The business I stopped at is very low-key and although I did make a purchcase, I did not receive a receipt or anything with a time-stamp. The best I could come up with is a letter signed by the shop owner, claiming that he had served me at approx 9:30 that morning. The speeding ticket shows about 10 mins later however with the time it took officer to flag me down & process me etc, I'm hoping it would stll look legit. I had considered using a closer time in the letter however that would likely make mine and the shopkeeper's stories look less and less believable to the judge/JP. Sorry for being so long-winded but wanted to be clear on what happened and hopefully get good advice on which defence I should use. As I am a newbie and have never fought a ticket (always a 1st time for everything I suppose) any advice on how to handle the big event would be appreciated (including whether I should even fight it or not). Cheers- rayin Barrie

Topic

66 in a permanently-posted 40 kph zone/CSZ

by: rayinbarrie on

24 Replies

User avatar
Pepsi
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 7:21 pm

Re: 66 in a permanently-posted 40 kph zone/CSZ

The only trial I've seen was a disaster for the defendant but she had completely no clue what she was doing and instead of cross examining the officer she kept on repeating she wasn't going 'that fast'. It was a short trial. I was prepared but the officer didn't show so I didn't have a chance to test my defence strategy. Hopefully if you decide to go to trial you will be prepared. Ticketcombat has a mention of community safety zone here http://www.ticketcombat.com/step3/findact.php and mentions municipal by-laws. Is it possible the rsz is mentioned there? Also, maybe you can find something here http://canlii.ca/en/on/laws/stat/rso-19 ... -c-h8.html . Just scroll down to Community safety zones.

The only trial I've seen was a disaster for the defendant but she had completely no clue what she was doing and instead of cross examining the officer she kept on repeating she wasn't going 'that fast'. It was a short trial. I was prepared but the officer didn't show so I didn't have a chance to test my defence strategy. Hopefully if you decide to go to trial you will be prepared. Ticketcombat has a mention of community safety zone here http://www.ticketcombat.com/step3/findact.php and mentions municipal by-laws. Is it possible the rsz is mentioned there? Also, maybe you can find something here http://canlii.ca/en/on/laws/stat/rso-19 ... -c-h8.html . Just scroll down to Community safety zones.

rayinbarrie
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: 66 in a permanently-posted 40 kph zone/CSZ

Thanks Pepsi, Seems your colleague at TicketCombat was right about nothing to lose and everything to gain by requesting a trial, regardless of one's final intentions. I checked option 3 but, instead of receiving a trial date, got a form letter from the court stating that the ticket was being dismissed because the police did not file in-time! The last sentence however was somewhat of a kill-joy: "The officer has the option to relay this charge". What exactly does this mean and can it affect me? Thanks again to you & other helpful posters for the insight & guidance. Cheers rayinbarrie

Thanks Pepsi,

Seems your colleague at TicketCombat was right about nothing to lose and everything to gain by requesting a trial, regardless of one's final intentions. I checked option 3 but, instead of receiving a trial date, got a form letter from the court stating that the ticket was being dismissed because the police did not file in-time!

The last sentence however was somewhat of a kill-joy: "The officer has the option to relay this charge". What exactly does this mean and can it affect me? Thanks again to you & other helpful posters for the insight & guidance.

Cheers

rayinbarrie

User avatar
Pepsi
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 7:21 pm

Re: 66 in a permanently-posted 40 kph zone/CSZ

rayinbarrie, I don't know what the relay note means but my guess would be that the officer might go back to the court/judge and request that the ticket not be dismissed. Ticketcombat says ' A police officer has seven days to file all the traffic tickets he wrote.' Maybe the officer was sick or had some other issue that prevented him from filing on time. Imho. unless the officer really has it in for you he'll just let it go. So, cautiously optimistic congrats to you. Maybe some other members will be able to clarify it for you.

rayinbarrie, I don't know what the relay note means but my guess would be that the officer might go back to the court/judge and request that the ticket not be dismissed. Ticketcombat says ' A police officer has seven days to file all the traffic tickets he wrote.' Maybe the officer was sick or had some other issue that prevented him from filing on time. Imho. unless the officer really has it in for you he'll just let it go. So, cautiously optimistic congrats to you. Maybe some other members will be able to clarify it for you.

daggx
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:21 am

Posting Awards

Re: 66 in a permanently-posted 40 kph zone/CSZ

While the cop has to submit a regular ticket issued under part 1 of the Provincial Offences Act within 7 days, he has up to 6 months from the date of the offence to serve you with a summons issued under part 3 of the Provincial Offences Act. So theoretically you still could be served with a summons, however in practice that seems like a lot of effort for a minor speeding ticket so I think he probably won't bother.

While the cop has to submit a regular ticket issued under part 1 of the Provincial Offences Act within 7 days, he has up to 6 months from the date of the offence to serve you with a summons issued under part 3 of the Provincial Offences Act. So theoretically you still could be served with a summons, however in practice that seems like a lot of effort for a minor speeding ticket so I think he probably won't bother.

User avatar
Pepsi
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 7:21 pm

Re: 66 in a permanently-posted 40 kph zone/CSZ

daggx, isn't part 3 of the POA only for serious violations? raybarrie's offence seems to fall into category 1. http://fightyourtickets.ca/law/ontario- ... ences-act/
Stanton
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 2111
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:49 pm
Location: Ontario

Posting Awards

Re: 66 in a permanently-posted 40 kph zone/CSZ

The wording on that link is a little confusing. You can actually proceed by way of Part III summons for any offence. Common reasons why that I can think of: 1) Too much time has passed to serve regular ticket. 2) A mix of minor and more serious offences (i.e. 15 over and no insurance). In such a case all offences should be on Part IIIs so theyre dealt with together. 3) A more serious punishment is being sought then the typical set fine.

The wording on that link is a little confusing. You can actually proceed by way of Part III summons for any offence. Common reasons why that I can think of:

1) Too much time has passed to serve regular ticket.

2) A mix of minor and more serious offences (i.e. 15 over and no insurance). In such a case all offences should be on Part IIIs so theyre dealt with together.

3) A more serious punishment is being sought then the typical set fine.

User avatar
Decatur
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 755
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:31 am

Posting Awards

Moderator

Re: 66 in a permanently-posted 40 kph zone/CSZ

Agree with Stanton. I issue a Part III for someone with multiple convictions for cel phone use.

Agree with Stanton. I issue a Part III for someone with multiple convictions for cel phone use.

User avatar
Pepsi
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 7:21 pm

Re: 66 in a permanently-posted 40 kph zone/CSZ

So, part 3 would be issued immediately for serious offences but can be issued later for a ticket that was originally issued under part 1 or 2? in other words, i could be summoned to court for speeding 5km if the officer failed to file the ticket within 7 days?

So, part 3 would be issued immediately for serious offences but can be issued later for a ticket that was originally issued under part 1 or 2? in other words, i could be summoned to court for speeding 5km if the officer failed to file the ticket within 7 days?

User avatar
Decatur
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 755
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:31 am

Posting Awards

Moderator

Re: 66 in a permanently-posted 40 kph zone/CSZ

The simple answer is yes. But not likely to happen in that scenario. Even a Part I issued for the offence would probably incur the wrath of most court offices, prosectors and Justices.

The simple answer is yes. But not likely to happen in that scenario. Even a Part I issued for the offence would probably incur the wrath of most court offices, prosectors and Justices.

daggx
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:21 am

Posting Awards

Re: 66 in a permanently-posted 40 kph zone/CSZ

Technically I believe a Part 3 summons could be issued for any offence under the Provincial Offences Act, even minor stuff. However Part 1 tickets are preferred for most minor offences because if officers issued Part 3 summonses for everything the courts would not be able to handle the backlog.

Technically I believe a Part 3 summons could be issued for any offence under the Provincial Offences Act, even minor stuff. However Part 1 tickets are preferred for most minor offences because if officers issued Part 3 summonses for everything the courts would not be able to handle the backlog.

Similar Topics