Hi,

I got 2 tickets for left turning into a road which was not allowed.

One was "DISOBEY SIGN" under 182(2). Other was "INTERFERE WITH TRAFFIC" under 170(12).

I do not understand the interfere with traffic offense. I did not stop at any time and was never blocking any traffic. Any chance I can get this off with video?

A bus was also blocking the no left turn sign on my side of traffic (captured on dash-cam). There was a sign on the opposite side of the traffic beside road I pulled in (but it was too late as I already pulled in).

Based on my understanding, I request Option 3 to appear in court? and then request disclosure? *Do I request a separate disclosure for each ticket?

What are my likely outcomes? I have a clean record.

Any response is appreciated.

Thanks.

I believe that the interfere with traffic charge is for when you stopped and waited so that you could safely make your left turn.

Request a trial and ask for disclosure, it comes all together. Most likely you'll plead guilty to the lesser charge and the other one will be dropped.

I think the dashcam video might be able to help - are you able to upload the video on YouTube or another video-sharing website so that people on this forum can review it and we can share our opinions.

Once you get a Notice of Trial, you can make one disclosure request for both tickets. You just need to include the details of both tickets on the disclosure request (such as the offence numbers, and the specific wording of the charges). But the items that you request should be the same for both: i.e. officer's notes, any audio-video recordings or photographs taken by the officer, etc.

The outcome for this case would depend on what your dashcam video shows and it would depend on the disclosure that you receive. Once you have disclosure, you will have a better idea of the case against you and whether you have a reasonable possibility of winning in court.

Thanks for the replies.

Here is a depiction: https://youtu.be/cjezsuTRlRc

I circled the placement of the signs.

I never stopped at any time before or after the turn = so no "interfere with traffic"?

There was a brief moment after I turned right that the bus has not blocked the sign yet, but I was checking my blind spot as I merged into the left lane after the turn. In the end, the bus blocked my view of the sign on the right.

When I saw the sign on the opposite side of the road, I have already turned and it was too late.

Below is my view of the sign after I turned before the bus blocked the sign. It is quite hard to see from this distance.

The second circled sign is clearly visible. It will be difficult to say you didn't see a No Left Turn Sign. HOWEVER...why didn't the officer pull over the person who turned ahead of you? Did the officer feel he had turned right? The driver does appear to go past the intersection, pull a U-turn and turn more-or-less right. It would be a tough sell, but you could almost make the same claim. The question would then be the legality of a U-turn at that spot.

The 170(12) charge is ridiculous. You pulled over at the direction of a police officer. You appeared to have pulled over at least as far as everyone else. Maybe the guy decided to give you two tickets so you'd plead guilty to one and the Crown would withdraw the other. Either way, that charge is pure garbage.

The left turn charge carries two demerit points; the "interference" charge has none.

The officer said he cannot catch everyone.

I know the interfere with traffic was a place holder for disobey sign if it gets removed.

Knowing that the interfere with traffic is invalid, how do I approach the process?

Just take the bogus charge in plea?

Does the sign blocked on my side of the traffic hold any merit?

If I were in your position, I'd certainly plead not guilty to both and get my disclosure before making any decisions. The blocked sign on the right won't help you, as there is a clearly visible sign on the left. Not only that, but a sign that's blocked by a moving obstruction (e.g., a truck) is not thought of as blocked. I know that stinks, but it is what it is.

The prosecutor will probably offer to drop the interfere with traffic if you plead guilty to the disobey sign. Why not? He gets the conviction on the offence that carries points and lets the one without points go. If the disclosure didn't work in my favour, I might counter with the reverse. It's worth a shot. Of course, if I wanted to roll the dice, I might try to convince the JP that I'd gone past the intersection (you did appear to have been a bit past it), made a U-turn and turned right onto the cross street.

Regardless, request a trial for both and, when you get the trial date, request disclosure.

The one other thing you may want to check out is whether this left turn prohibition is by-lawed. It appears that the turn prohibition is to a private drive and not another public road. If it is private, I'm curious as to how the prohibition is by-lawed. Street to street is easy, but I've questioned how to identify the "road" it's when it's private and technically doesn't have a name.

If there is no by-law, one could argue that the prohibition isn't legal and, in turn, not enforceable.

If it is a street, please disregard what I wrote. You could still check to make sure it is by-lawed, but it would most likely be.

As for the disobey sign, others can speak to this, but I know truck prohibitions are enforced under this. However, there still needs to be a by-law prohibiting trucks on that particular road.

Just my two cents, others may be able to provide some clarification on this.

Thanks billiards15.

It is a good point that you raised.

If there is no name for that road, does it still constitute as a "highway" as highlighted in HTA?

Would it be called an entrance instead of a highway? Making the sign "no left turn" invalid because it is indicated for intersections.

I was looking into bylaws but found it wierd that markham has no traffic bylaws?? Or they don't list them online like Toronto does?

I don't really understand bylaw vs HTA. Does one takes priority over another?

If there is no bylaw, then what does it mean.

The HTA is the overarching document, bylaws are the details so to speak.

I should have been more specific in my original post. What you want to see is the schedule from the Traffic Bylaw that lists all the prohibited turns in the municipality. This turn prohibition needs to be listed there, if not, I would question the legality of the prohibition and wether it's enforceable.

If it were a prohibited turn from a street to another street, I wouldn't be suggesting this. However, it's to a private drive. My question isn't the fact it's not a road and whether the HTA applies, it's how it's described in the schedule or if it's even described. Signs alone aren't enough, it needs to be defined in a document (bylaw). If it's not defined, what gives it status, who approved it, etc.