Decatur wrote:

The crosswalk is well before the manhole cover seen in the lower right corner of your picture. You must stop immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk.

?? There's no crosswalk. Do you mean the sidewalk on the left? Why would I have to stop before the sidewalk to the left? That's not the intersection.

Stanton wrote:

It's difficult to say based on Google street view alone, but I don't think the southbound stop sign is properly placed. It appears that it's actually in the intersection, when in fact it should be placed before the intersection. It's still quite visible and likely fully legal due to the double driveway making proper placement impracticable, but thought I'd mention it.

Thank you Stanton for pointing that out. I always just stop at the stop sign. So if I understand correctly, technically I should stop before the sidewalk to the left i.e. in the middle of the driveway to the right?? Is that what you mean? Would anyone actually do that and would the average person actually know that? I would have no idea. Maybe that's why he gave me the ticket -- because I stopped at the stop sign which is I guess based on what I've read here, technically in the intersection instead of before it??? Because I'm positive that I stopped.

So I went to court today and got an adjournment til end of June.

My intent all along for today was to get an adjournment but now I'm wondering if I made the wrong choice. Beforehand, the prosecutor offered everyone a reduced fine/points for pleading guilty. She offered me no points and a reduced fine which I said no to. To be honest, I was totally caught off guard by her offer because I wasn't expecting that to even be an option. Everything that I've read on different ticket fighting sites always talks about pushing for an adjournment. So I thought since I hadn't received disclosure that I should focus on that. I also thought only the fine could be reduced but not the points. I didn't realize the points could be dropped. But now I'm thinking I should have just taken the reduced fine and no points. Did I make the wrong choice??

The officer was there so I assume he'll show up next time. I got a copy of his notes where he claims that I slowed "to approx. 15-20 wpm continued SB without stopping". I still think that's wrong. He said that there is video available which I requested a copy of in the prosecutor's office. Not sure how long that should take to get. Also on the officer's notes it says "3380 parked WB on Ernest on Edmonton Dr. Stop sign enf." What does 3380 refer to? (It's not his officer number.) It doesn't say which side of the street he was on or where on Ernest he was so I have no idea what his visibility was like.

Any advice for next time? Do I go ahead and question him on his evidence or should I just accept an offer of no points if it's offered again? What if I don't get the video evidence? I'm confused!

Ariell wrote:

I also thought only the fine could be reduced but not the points. I didn't realize the points could be dropped. But now I'm thinking I should have just taken the reduced fine and no points. Did I make the wrong choice??

You are slightly confused here. The fine can be reduced, but they can't make the points disappear. They didn't drop the points. Points are calculated based on what you're being charged for. There were probably no points involved with the reduced fine they offered you. That's why there were no points involved. That being said, points are a ministry thing and not an insurance thing. The fact you would receive no points doesn't necessarily make a difference towards insurance. Your provider only cares about your convictions and doesn't care how many points you have. You can still see your insurance increase with zero points. Points are overrated. They stay on your record for 2 years from the day you were pulled over (clock is already ticking away in your case). They are unofficially reserved for 2 types of drivers, newly licensed and complete morons. Majority of drivers will never never accumulate enough points in a 2 year period for it to make any difference. The charge is what matters.

Did you make the wrong choice? I'd say no. You now have disclosure, and on top of that, you're going to receive video of the incident. You are more than likely going to receive the same plea deal again next time you show up, or at least something similar. I'd say you made a pretty good choice.

Ariell wrote:

Also on the officer's notes it says "3380 parked WB on Ernest on Edmonton Dr. Stop sign enf." What does 3380 refer to? (It's not his officer number.)

There are officers here who can answer this with complete certainly, but i'd guess it's the officers car number.

Ariell wrote:

Any advice for next time? Do I go ahead and question him on his evidence or should I just accept an offer of no points if it's offered again? What if I don't get the video evidence? I'm confused!

If they say there's video available, you'll get it. If you don't, you can try to make an argument in court.

Thanks again very much for clarifying things bend. So basically if I had have taken the prosecutor's deal, it would be reduced fine, no points but it would mean pleading guilty to failure to stop and that's what the insurance will care about, right?

You'd have to confirm what exactly you were pleading guilty to. If it was a local bylaw, it likely wouldn't appear on your driving abstract and wouldn't impact your insurance. If it's simply another HTA offence, then it will appear on your abstract and likely will impact your insurance.

Thanks very much Stanton. The prosecutor didn't say -- she just said reduced fine, no points so I don't know what it was. I will definitely ask next time if it's offered. Like I said, I wasn't expecting an offer so I was kind of taken aback when it was offered. They really try to rush you to get you to make a snap decision though.

The other thing that I thought I should mention for the benefit of anyone who has never been to court before like me is that the prosecutor really does try to intimidate you so just be prepared for that and stand your ground. When I turned down the offer and said that I wanted to adjourn because I didn't get disclosure, she condescendingly said, "Well, did you bother to ask for disclosure?" -- like I'm an idiot or something. When I told her that actually yes, I did and showed her the fax that I sent, she looked at the cover sheet and claimed that it was the wrong fax number. So of course now I'm completely panicked, thinking I had sent the disclosure request to the wrong place and that they had never received it and am frantically looking through the papers I brought with me to check the fax number. At the same time, she started quickly rifling through the stack of disclosure requests that she had to show that they didn't receive it, complaining also that I had sent it late. I explained that the trial notice was sent late and that I had sent my disclosure request days after getting the trial notice. Luckily, as she was quickly flipping through the pages, I saw my disclosure request and stopped her. I get that prosecutors have to do this hundreds of times a week and I'm sure they have to put up with alot of BS but they should also realize that for someone who has never been to court before, the process is confusing and nervewracking and they don't have to make it worse by trying to intimidate you. I can only imagine what the process is like for someone that doesn't have a good command of English.