I just got ticket for speeding 90kmh in 70 zone.I didn't see the police car on the road and the officer didn't give me his exact location.It was only one officer. also when i asked to see the device he showed to me only the screen and when i wanted to see the model he said he not supposed to give it to me and put it away.He said i will see all the details in his notes as evidence.

I asked question about the device and he said it takes too long and i am blocking the traffic so i have to go.From the stop to the issuing the ticket was less than 5 min. No time for questions.Do i have any chance fighting the ticket?

Any advice will be greatly appreciated.

There's always a chance to fight a ticket, but it's impossible to know what those chances are without further information.

You're best bet is to request disclosure and see what the officer's evidence is, and see if there are any weak points on which you could try and fight the charge.

Be aware however that if you do go to trial, the ticket will likely be raised to the full amount, so a $95 fine and 3 points if convicted.

Because the officer was not willing to play 20 Questions roadside does not constitute grounds for ticket dismissal, if that's your question.

Thanks guys! My point is the officer was trying to cover something.He stooped me took my documents, print the ticket and gave it to me in just 3 min.No driving record check no explanation . I am sure he wasn't beside the road i was driving.We didn't see police car anywhere near by in a clear day light.

Anyway i will try my chances. The ticket will be in my record anyway.

Well, the police usually hide when doing radar, they wouldn't catch many people of they sat in plain sight..... and consider your self lucky, I never heard of anyone getting dealt with that quickly. Like the others said, request all the info you want when you ask for disclosure. I don't see how he was trying to cover anything up. Was probably nearing the end of his shift, or he got another call and was in a hurry to get going.

manwithaplan wrote:Well, the police usually hide when doing radar, they wouldn't catch many people of they sat in plain sight.

funny you say that...I sit on the hwy plain view on a straight area, nothing around, and still drivers don't look more than 100m up the road to see the cruiser, plenty of people just want my attention I guess Sometimes I even try to help by making the car look bigger and park it x-ways, that doesnt seem to work either

I don't doubt it, lol. You could probably sit there with your lights flashing and still catch people. Hell, when I first got my license at 17 I ran a red light down the street from a police station with a cruiser right behind me (D'oh!). I started paying more attention after that.

In most cases I see personally (in Toronto) they're usually hiding behind trees/poles with the cruiser(s) parked out of site. And on the 407 you guys like to hide behind the overpasses, so we can't see you until it's too late

manwithaplan wrote:And on the 407 you guys like to hide behind the overpasses, so we can't see you until it's too late

ahh..see there is the difference, sitting behind overpasses provides us protection/barrier from vehicles just randomly leave their lane in an uncontrolled path for an undetermined location

i agree we don't pay attention too much ahead but when you are passing by a police car i don't think you will miss it.That is my point here.There was nowhere to hide and it is not a bicycle to hide it.Or i am totally blind and my friend sitting on the passenger seat also.And probably he was on his way home-4:30 pm just about time .Anyway -i had a bad luck.

I just had the trial. I did submit evidence(photos) there is no sign Speed limit posted after the intersection.

The Justice accepted the evidence and said yes but long before the intersection there is sign so i was convicted.

Clearly this court is a joke .They do not respect the traffic regulations or they have no idea what that is.

At least i made them to work hard for the $90 fine.

I would recommend everyone to fight any ticket they get.

I had a trial and convicted for driving 90km/h in 70 zone. I was clocked after a major intersection and after the intersection there is no speed limit sign posted. The reason i was convicted was there is speed limit sign long before the intersection . The speed limit signs have to be posted after every major intersection according to the regulations-not accepted by the court. Also submitted the city road map report with the roads categories and speed limits and it was totally ignored by the Justice(what a joke). The road was listed as category B and speed limit 80 outside urban area-the Justice accepted the prosecutions statement that in the city speed limit is 50km/h just by saying so.

I did submit all documents from the City and photos proving all i say -but i guess the Justice doesn't believe his eyes.

What a disappointment-The traffic court is so corrupted!!!

gramada2 wrote: The speed limit signs have to be posted after every major intersection according to the regulations-not accepted by the court. !

for all of us, what regulation is this? and what section? thanx

Here guys

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/e ... _e.htm#BK0

3. (1) The commencement of the part of a highway for which a maximum rate of speed is prescribed shall be indicated by a speed limit sign accompanied immediately below by a sign bearing the markings and having the dimensions as illustrated in the following Figure:

When you are entering the Highway from a side road you are driving left or right on the intersection to enter the highway.

For you this is the beginning of the Highway. How you would know what is the speed limit or if it is different than the appropriate speed limit for that category road?

Or with other words shortly after every intersection speed limit sign is posted so the new traffic entering that road is informed for the speed limit change.

and little bit more

when charged with speeding the prosecution has to provide certified copy of the By Law stating there is a new speed limit in force for that section of the road and is different than the appropriate speed for the road.

I don't think they ever do that. The officer says there is sign posted but if the sign is posted who knows?

In my case there is no sign posted and i showed photos.

I think you misunderstood the section you've quoted. It's referring to the fact that when there is a change in the speed limit (i.e. a 80 drops down to a 50 zone), the speed limit sign should have the word "BEGINS" affixed below it. The requirement for where and how often speed limit signs need to be posted is directly above that section (600 or 900 meters apart depending on the speed limit).

Right or wrong, there is no legal requirement for the limit to be posted at every intersection.

In regards to your second part about bylaws, I believe for Court purposed the presence of a speed limit sign on the roadway (even though there wasn't one at the intersection) is considered prima facie evidence of the bylaw.