Here's what happened to me...any feedback would be appreciated!

I entered Hwy 401 after driving South on Morningside Avenue from Sheppard around 7am during peak weekday traffic. I was unable to merge into the first main lane of traffic as no one would let me in. Instead of coming to a complete stop on the highway to push myself in (with a number of cars following close behind me), I thought my better option would be to get off at the next exit (Neilson Rd.) and then return onto the highway from there.

I came up to the lights - there are 3 lanes...2 turning left and 1 turning right. I remained in the centre lane that turns left. You are not able to go straight at these lights. I turned left when the light changed and merged onto the ramp to re-enter the highway. (The lane to get onto the highway is like a 3rd lane when turning left from this ramp.) A cop stepped out onto the road and pulled me over, giving me a ticket for 'disobeying a sign' and quoted Highway Act 182 (2). There was no sign posted ANYWHERE saying that I could not do what I just did.

I have since returned to the intersection and taken photographs of it. (Is there somewhere for me to post them so that others can see?) I feel I have been unjustly ticketed and would like to go to traffic court to fight it. Does anyone know if I truly did do something wrong here? As far as I can see, I didn't 'disobey' any sign, because none exists. Do I have a chance fighting this?

Any thoughts are greatly appreciated! Thanks.

You can post pictures online using photobucket (google that). It will even give you a proper BBcode to insert the picture properly.

You can definitely fight this ticket. Send the ticket in with Option 3 checked off, as well as "Officer present". After you receive a trial date (or before that), file for disclosure.

Some LEOs on this forum have said that the pictures must be taken in .RAW format to be admissible in court though.

racer wrote:

Some LEOs on this forum have said that the pictures must be taken in .RAW format to be admissible in court though.

This sounded a bit strange. So I looked up some info about RAW formats if anyone is interested.

What is a RAW format?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

Raw image format

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For the raw disk image format, see IMG (file format).

Raw image file Filename extension .3fr (Hasselblad)

.arw .srf .sr2

(Sony)

.bay (Casio)

.crw .cr2 (Canon)

.cap .tif .iiq .eip

(Phase_One)

.dcs .dcr .drf .k25 .kdc .tif (Kodak)

.dng (Adobe)

.erf (Epson)

.fff (Imacon)

.mef (Mamiya)

.mos (Leaf)

.mrw (Minolta)

.nef .nrw (Nikon)

.orf (Olympus)

.ptx .pef (Pentax)

.pxn (Logitech)

.r3d (Red)

.raf (Fuji)

.raw .rw2 (Panasonic)

.raw .rwl .dng (Leica)

.rwz (Rawzor)

.x3f (Sigma)

Type of format Image file formats

A camera raw image file contains minimally processed data from the image sensor of either a digital camera, image or motion picture film scanner. Raw files are so named because they are not yet processed and therefore are not ready to be used with a bitmap graphics editor or printed. Normally, the image is processed by a raw converter in a wide-gamut internal colorspace where precise adjustments can be made before conversion to a "positive" file format such as TIFF or JPEG for storage, printing, or further manipulation, which often encodes the image in a device-dependent colorspace. These images are often described as "RAW image files" based on the erroneous belief that they represent a single file format. In fact there are dozens if not hundreds of raw image formats in use by different models of digital equipment (like cameras or film scanners).[1]

Raw image files are sometimes called digital negatives, as they fulfill the same role as negatives in film photography: that is, the negative is not directly usable as an image, but has all of the information needed to create an image. Likewise, the process of converting a raw image file into a viewable format is sometimes called developing a raw image, by analogy with the film development process used to convert photographic film into viewable prints. The selection of the final choice of image rendering is part of the process of white balancing and color grading.

Like a photographic negative, a raw digital image may have a wider dynamic range or color gamut than the eventual final image format, and is usually the one "closest" to the real picture in the sense that it preserves most of its details. Raw image formats' purpose is to faithfully record both 100% of exactly what the sensor "saw" or "sensed" (the data), and the conditions surrounding the recording of the image (the metadata).

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com ... t=raw#8408

hwybear wrote:

Radar Identified wrote:

Bookm gave you some good advice here. Photographs may or may not help, but be aware of the following:

- Have the originals and the camera that took them

- Take the photographs yourself

- After taking photos, have a real photo shop do the prints (e.g. Black's)

- If using digital camera, have the original data card, CD of the prints and the prints

- Go to a Commissioner of Oaths and sign a document testifying that the photos are true and unaltered

A lot of work. In Toronto they'll accept the as long as the photographer is present and the originals are available. As for the photos, if the officer was in the oncoming traffic lane and on the other side of the intersection, they probably won't be necessary. If he was approaching from the side of the intersection, then that might help (could show officer did not have a view of the traffic light you were facing).

Good luck with it, and as Bookm said, we'll guide you through the process.

data on the card must be in "RAW" format. It is a format that can not be altered, unlike a jpeg. It will be stored/saved as a .raw file

This ensures that the data is original. Kinda like instant Polaroids - these can't be altered.

Not all cameras have the ability to save pictures in .raw format. This is an uncompressed image sensor data, usually 1 MB per MP (5 Megapixel camera will take a raw image in about 5 megabyte file, compared to about 1.5 mb for a "fine" jpeg). Colour processing is easy to do with a computer to "preview" the printout. Or your camera can do it on-the-fly to preview in the display screen.

This came up when I was speaking with our detachment commander here. My camera is pretty ancient and won't do RAW. He said that, as far as he knew, RAW formats were not absolutely required, but they do tend to have more credibility than JPEGs. So if your camera can do it, save in RAW format.