Possibility of having traffic ticket reduced to a bylaw one

I just got a ticket for an illegal Uturn. I pulled into a driveway, waited a few seconds and turned around. It was my fault.

The cop was nice and told me that I can select option 2 and they would/can reduce it to either a bylaw ticket or non moving violation. I have been reading that it isn't possible in Ontario.

I have been given 110 dollar fine and 2 demerit points. I don't want this on my record to raise insurance. Is there any truth to what this cop said?

I also have a dashcam. It would show that I pulled into the driveway for at least 15 seconds. Could I get away with saying that I pulled into the wrong driveway or something?

I think you're actually in a very solid position.

I seem to recall reading about a similar situation recently (I believe it was in the news?). Anyway, the gentleman in that case was charged with same having turned, pulled into a driveway and then backed up. Having said that, you stopped for 15 seconds and have the dash cam footage which confirms. Request a court date and present your dash cam footage. You can demonstrate that you didn't complete an illegal turn - you turned onto the driveway and stopped and began a new maneuver after a significant break.

The case you're referring that gained media attention was commonly titled everywhere as "Is a three-point turn a U-turn?".

It's where a Brampton man driving north, turned left into a driveway, reversed his car and proceeded south.

He was found guilty.

Section 143 of the Highway Traffic Act refers to a U-turn as a turn "so as to proceed in the opposite direction,"

Quick summary of ruling:

"A three-point turn as a driving manoeuvre is not defined in the Highway Traffic Act . . . and as such, a three-point turn for the purposes of the Highway Traffic Act is not legally distinct from a U-turn manoeuvre....The defendants turns and driving manoeuvre . . . constitute a U-turn manoeuvre within the meaning of the Highway Traffic Act, since their purpose had been to facilitate the motor vehicle turning around to proceed in the opposite direction."

+1

For Op's benefit, the case is Brampton (City) v. Robinson.

bend wrote:

The case you're referring that gained media attention was commonly titled everywhere as "Is a three-point turn a U-turn?".

It's where a Brampton man driving north, turned left into a driveway, reversed his car and proceeded south.

He was found guilty.

Section 143 of the Highway Traffic Act refers to a U-turn as a turn "so as to proceed in the opposite direction,"

Quick summary of ruling:

"A three-point turn as a driving manoeuvre is not defined in the Highway Traffic Act . . . and as such, a three-point turn for the purposes of the Highway Traffic Act is not legally distinct from a U-turn manoeuvre....The defendants turns and driving manoeuvre . . . constitute a U-turn manoeuvre within the meaning of the Highway Traffic Act, since their purpose had been to facilitate the motor vehicle turning around to proceed in the opposite direction."

Thank you for reminding me:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/0 ... d-way.html

While the individual in question did in fact lose here are the takeaways I got from the article which I think may prove beneficial to the OP:

"The officer who pulled him over testified that Robinson did a U-turn because his vehicle did not fully leave the roadway during the three-point turn."

"Daniel Slovak, a paralegal at Traffic Ticket Knights in Markham, also agreed with the ruling - He was trying complete something illegal by maneuvering in a different way, he should have been a little bit more creative," Slovak said. "I would have pulled into the driveway. I would count, one Mississippi, two Mississippi, three Mississippi."

"Jordan Donich, a traffic lawyer at Donich Law in Toronto who wasnt part of the case, told the Star that a drivers intent to turn around is more important than the manoeuvre itself. How ridiculous would it be if all someone would need to get around an illegal U-turn would be to stop two or three times along the way?" Donich asked. "The U-turn is there not necessarily to prevent a U-turn necessarily, its because its unsafe to make a 180 and proceed the other way . . . its not so much about the manner in how you turn. Donich said that the absence of a definition of a U-turn is intentional. They want to have liberal interpretation of your behaviour. If its too clearly defined, people can then create a conduct that may not fit the definition and get off free."

Clearly the ambiguity exists for a reason. If pulling completely off the road onto a private driveway for 15+ seconds with dash cam footage to verify one could certainly make an argument. I'll leave it to the OP to decide if he/she chooses to make an argument.