69 in a 40: Question about Sign Regulations

My wife recently received a spedding ticket for going 69 in a 40, a trial date has been given, looking for opinions for tactics in case the officer shows.

One particular issue that is bothering me is the placement of the speed limit sign.

Firstly is is posted "40 BEGINS" just as you start the downhill ie. not visible as you approach the sign.

Secondly; the sign is located, due to a grass verge and sidewalk, at least 15-20 feet from the roadway, where all along this stretch of raodway all other signs are within 5 feet of the roadway.

Cops are here all the time, probably because so many drivers do not notice the sign and the downhill keeps you travelling faster than you might think.

Anyway, Is there a regulation that can be argued about the sign not only being hard to see and act on, you have less than 20 m to slow down from when you can first see the sign and when the reduced limit takes affect, but also TOO FAR from the roadway?

http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/i ... text=#hit1

Speed signs. O. Reg. 615.........

*Copies posting for own future reference.............*

Visibility of the sign or awareness of the speed zone is essentially irrelevant as speeding is an absolute liability offence.

Thanks Moderator,

There are a number of regulations that apply to speed limit signage. This particular sign clearly does not follow the rules set out in the HTA.

I've had a chance to talk to a couple of lawyers about this and their collective experience says that Judges will usually side with the public if the city has not properly displayed the signage. If they could just post any sign, anywhere and in any fashion the rules regulating them would not exist.

Mr. Borys,

Aren't you a ray of sunshine...are you sure that you have joined the right forum?

In Simon's defense, he devotes and volunteers a lot of his time here to help those like you and others. He, along with a few other people here, have years of experience to help and advise people such as yourself and do not benefit from doing so.

Thanks Puzzled,

I understand that the help and advice is given pro bono and

it is certainly greatly appreciated. I was just commenting

on his particular response to my question where he came

across as a disgruntled ex cop rather than a helpful moderator,

especially since in this particular matter he was way off.

I joined the forum for help and advice, I can get ridiculed

by a cop any where.

Let's just leave Simon out of this going forward.

Thanks everyone

Yes, I'm sure I've joined the right forum...a forum where I try to share with others the benefit of my experience. Right now my experience is telling me that speeding is an absolute liability offence and therefore you will not be permitted to try to enter a defence of any kind at a trial, including one related to the adequacy or inadequacy of the signage. That is what absolute liability means. I'm just trying to save you planting a tree that will not bear fruit. Even if I don't have time to write a detailed response to every post suggesting where someone should be directing their efforts, I still try to let them know if they're barking up the wrong tree.

andrewm73 wrote:

I was just commenting

on his particular response to my question where he came

across as a disgruntled ex cop rather than a helpful moderator,

especially since in this particular matter he was way off.

No, he wasn't "way off." He said:

Simon Borys wrote:

Visibility of the sign or awareness of the speed zone is essentially irrelevant as speeding is an absolute liability offence.

That is correct. Speeding is an absolute liability offence, and that's according to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Prosecutor only has to prove that your wife was exceeding the posted speed limit, and that is it. As for the sign, if you can prove that the sign is non-compliant with O.Reg 615, then that means that the speed limit she should've been following was the default of 50 km/h. Problem is, the officer says she was going 69. I suppose if she was just coming out of a 70 (or higher) zone, you might win. However, even if the "40 begins" sign was not correctly posted, if there were other signs before the place where the officer was stationed, it then depends on where the officer took the speed reading. You'd need disclosure of the officer's notes to find out, which you can get via a disclosure request (if you haven't already made one). You'd then have to visit the scene and take measurements and photos to back up your claim. Unless she was coming out of a 70 zone, I don't think this will work. Most speeding cases are won on technicalities (e.g. improper testing of the device, no tracking history, 11B, improper disclosure).

Worst-case scenario, if the officer shows up, your wife should be offered a plea-bargain to a lesser speed. I did see a person win a court case where a speed limit sign was improperly posted - but that was an improper construction zone sign which said "40," the original (and clearly posted) limit was 60 and he was going 57. The guy had a full factum put together: Photos, O. Reg 615, measurements and case law.

And yes, Simon Borys has joined the right forum. He has been quite helpful to a number of people who have come on here seeking advice, helping them beat their tickets, and also steering them away from a course of action that will lead nowhere (as he says). Attacking him is not going to help you win your case.

Thanks, disclosure has been applied for. Will se what we get.

Regarding Simon ... As already said lets move on,

My God people really

No one is "attacking" anyone here.