Failed To Stop At This Intersection

Moderators: admin, hwybear, Radar Identified, Reflections, Decatur, bend

BillDuke
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:54 am

Failed To Stop At This Intersection

by: BillDuke on

My wife has been driving the rout in question for 10 years at least 2 times per week and never failed to stop at this intersection. The police video shows a narrow view of the stop sign and lines but due to the angle does not show a wide enough view to view where the defendant claims to have stopped. The officer claims the defendant did not attempt to break. However he also claims the defendant went through at 20 km ph. The speed limit on the street is 40 km. Unless the defendant drove the entire 200 mtr way at 20 km she must have breaked out of sight of the officer. I am considering arguing that where the letter of the law was not obeyed the spirit of the law was certainly given all attention.

Any comments would be appreciated.

User avatar
highwaystar
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 368
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 5:46 pm

Posting Awards

by: highwaystar on

I'm assuming your wife was charged with "Disobey stop sign — fail to stop" as per (s.136(1)(a)). If so, its an absolute liability offence meaning she either stopped where she must or she didn't; there's no due diligence defence. So, your comments about spirit vs letter of the law is irrelevant. The section is very clear where she must stop.


If there is a stop line, then she must stop "at the marked stop line", otherwise its "immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk" or if there is also no crosswalk, then its "immediately before entering the intersection". The use of the word "immediately" further illustrates that the stop is not to be made far back from where she must actually stop but rather 'immediately before'; so as close as reasonably possible.


So, if there is a marked stop line then she must stop "AT" it, not before it (although courts may allow a 1-3 feet back). That's how the courts have been interpreting it. That also seems reasonable; otherwise there would be no certainty in the law since someone could easily say they stopped 50 meters back and claim they stopped-----while they did stop, they didn't stop where they should have as per the section!


Just know that the video isn't the end all anyway; it'll just be used for corroboration on what the visibility was, weather, intersection looked like, etc. The officer will likely say her tires never fully stopped AT the line which is a violation of the section.

Post a Reply
  • Similar Topics

Return to “General Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests