"A matter pertaining to advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose as it relates to the potential implementation of a Red Light Camera Program (C2/1/CWC)" Tuesday Jan 12, 2016 Sorry for the LATE notice. BUT email your London Councillor or Mayor in general or all of them. Does not matter if you live in the city, you visit the city right? 1% of the London citizens are probably aware they are about to get 5 yrs of HELL and $325 fines, 40% goes to the Region and 60% the cash starved city. And you all know that red light cameras ticket rolling RIGHT TURNS right? Durham Region said NO by vote of 21-4 in Sep. 2015. Why because increasing yellow lights by 0.5-1sec makes the whole Red Light Camera business case fall apart. http://sire.london.ca/mtgviewer.aspx?me ... ype=AGENDA http://www.london.ca/city-hall/city-cou ... fault.aspx Now is NOT the time for apathy fellow Cdns http://www.autoblog.com/2015/03/25/redf ... o-resigns/)
"A matter pertaining to advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose as it relates to the potential implementation of a Red Light Camera Program (C2/1/CWC)"
Tuesday Jan 12, 2016
Sorry for the LATE notice.
BUT email your London Councillor or Mayor in general or all of them. Does not matter if you live in the city, you visit the city right?
1% of the London citizens are probably aware they are about to get 5 yrs of HELL and $325 fines, 40% goes to the Region and 60% the cash starved city.
And you all know that red light cameras ticket rolling RIGHT TURNS right?
Durham Region said NO by vote of 21-4 in Sep. 2015.
Why because increasing yellow lights by 0.5-1sec makes the whole Red Light Camera business case fall apart.
A ''rolling right turn'' is still a ''Fail to stop at red light'' and warrants the $325.00 total payable. Photo enforcement is coming , red light cameras are only the beginning. Might as well get used to it. Take the City of Edmonton for example which is now testing a mobile unmarked photo radar unit and dozens of photo enforcement sites operating throughout the city 24/7 .
A ''rolling right turn'' is still a ''Fail to stop at red light'' and warrants the $325.00 total payable.
Photo enforcement is coming , red light cameras are only the beginning. Might as well get used to it.
Take the City of Edmonton for example which is now testing a mobile unmarked photo radar unit and dozens of photo enforcement sites operating throughout the city 24/7 .
Let's pretend that making a right on a red without stopping wasn't already illegal. These cameras work based off of triggers that correspond to speed. These cameras start picking up action when it recognizes something moving over a certain speed right before the line. I don't know the exact speed, but it's somewhere in between 20-30km. The picture sent to you will even provide you with your speed when you hit the line. Your average joe isn't going to trigger the camera by simply creeping over the line. If you received a red light camera ticket while making a right on red, chances are you made nothing close to an attempt to stop to begin with.
250alp wrote:
And you all know that red light cameras ticket rolling RIGHT TURNS right?
Let's pretend that making a right on a red without stopping wasn't already illegal.
These cameras work based off of triggers that correspond to speed. These cameras start picking up action when it recognizes something moving over a certain speed right before the line. I don't know the exact speed, but it's somewhere in between 20-30km. The picture sent to you will even provide you with your speed when you hit the line. Your average joe isn't going to trigger the camera by simply creeping over the line. If you received a red light camera ticket while making a right on red, chances are you made nothing close to an attempt to stop to begin with.
Reminder the VOTE is Tuesday lunch TOMORROW, time running out. Red Light Cameras have "unintended consequences" and do little to change behavior except increase rear end collisions by 46% by one study alone. Plus USA cities are slowing pulling the plug, why? too many angry voters and red light corruption by the private contractors in it for profit. http://www.autoblog.com/2015/03/25/redf ... o-resigns/ "Regarding the results from the time series analyses of red light running crashes, when considering the strongest evidence only (effects significant at 5% level), there was a 46% decrease in right angle crashes at camera intersections and a 42% increase in rear end crashes. Given that rear end crashes are typically less severe than right angle crashes and the fact that this negative side effect can be rectified using mitigating strategies such as improving signage and education about the functioning of the photo cameras, it appears the photo enforcement safety program has had a positive net effect on traffic safety in the city of Winnipeg." Winnipeg study 2011 pg12 http://www.tirf.ca/publications/PDF_pub ... ort-12.pdf
Reminder the VOTE is Tuesday lunch TOMORROW, time running out.
Red Light Cameras have "unintended consequences" and do little to change behavior except increase rear end collisions by 46% by one study alone.
Plus USA cities are slowing pulling the plug, why? too many angry voters and red light corruption by the private contractors in it for profit.
"Regarding the results from the time series analyses of red light running crashes, when considering the strongest evidence only (effects significant at 5% level), there was a 46% decrease in right angle crashes at camera intersections and a 42% increase in rear end crashes. Given that rear end crashes are typically less severe than right angle crashes and the fact that this negative side effect can be rectified using mitigating strategies such as improving signage and education about the functioning of the photo cameras, it appears the photo enforcement safety program has had a positive net effect on traffic safety in the city of Winnipeg."
Tks "jsherk" for sending the email. Soldiers died for a freedom and now we are letting unrepresentative government take away our freedoms with good intentions of course. $325 ticket, give me a break, plus insurance penalties for 3 years? Why not make it $550, make more money.
Tks "jsherk" for sending the email. Soldiers died for a freedom and now we are letting unrepresentative government take away our freedoms with good intentions of course.
$325 ticket, give me a break, plus insurance penalties for 3 years? Why not make it $550, make more money.
Warning - rant ahead. As a former soldier (who lost good friends) I'm getting thoroughly fed up of people using the old line that people died for our freedoms every time they don't like something that government is doing. I'm no fan of red light cameras but their use is nothing to do with taking away a freedom. You don't have the freedom to run red lights now - there's a law against that. A red light camera is just a way of enforcing it. Rant over - carry on.
250alp wrote:
Tks "jsherk" for sending the email. Soldiers died for a freedom and now we are letting unrepresentative government take away our freedoms with good intentions of course.
$325 ticket, give me a break, plus insurance penalties for 3 years? Why not make it $550, make more money.
Warning - rant ahead.
As a former soldier (who lost good friends) I'm getting thoroughly fed up of people using the old line that people died for our freedoms every time they don't like something that government is doing.
I'm no fan of red light cameras but their use is nothing to do with taking away a freedom. You don't have the freedom to run red lights now - there's a law against that. A red light camera is just a way of enforcing it.
Rant over - carry on.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
Red light camera tickets have no impact on insurance. They are glorified parking tickets. No honest "ticket fighter" will ever take your money to defend such a charge because their time would cost more than the ticket would ever cost you.
250alp wrote:
$325 ticket, give me a break, plus insurance penalties for 3 years?
Red light camera tickets have no impact on insurance. They are glorified parking tickets. No honest "ticket fighter" will ever take your money to defend such a charge because their time would cost more than the ticket would ever cost you.
agreed also Jumping a RED light is far far far more deadly than most offences, as your likly to crash with somone coming the other way I very rarely have any sympathy for anyone jumping a red light Warning - rant ahead. As a former soldier (who lost good friends) I'm getting thoroughly fed up of people using the old line that people died for our freedoms every time they don't like something that government is doing. I'm no fan of red light cameras but their use is nothing to do with taking away a freedom. You don't have the freedom to run red lights now - there's a law against that. A red light camera is just a way of enforcing it. Rant over - carry on.
agreed
also Jumping a RED light is far far far more deadly than most offences, as your likly to crash with somone coming the other way
I very rarely have any sympathy for anyone jumping a red light
argyll wrote:
250alp wrote:
Tks "jsherk" for sending the email. Soldiers died for a freedom and now we are letting unrepresentative government take away our freedoms with good intentions of course.
$325 ticket, give me a break, plus insurance penalties for 3 years? Why not make it $550, make more money.
Warning - rant ahead.
As a former soldier (who lost good friends) I'm getting thoroughly fed up of people using the old line that people died for our freedoms every time they don't like something that government is doing.
I'm no fan of red light cameras but their use is nothing to do with taking away a freedom. You don't have the freedom to run red lights now - there's a law against that. A red light camera is just a way of enforcing it.
Rant over - carry on.
--------------------------------------------------------------
* NO you cant touch your phone
* Speeding is speeding
* Challenge every ticket
* Impaired driving, you should be locked up UNDER the jail
I wish red light tickets took pictures of the driver, and not the plate. Yes I know it has no insurance complications, but on 2 instances where my father got a red light ticket on a shared vehicle, no one wants to admit they ran the red. So my dad makes all of my siblings pay for the ticket, which I find is stupid.
I wish red light tickets took pictures of the driver, and not the plate. Yes I know it has no insurance complications, but on 2 instances where my father got a red light ticket on a shared vehicle, no one wants to admit they ran the red. So my dad makes all of my siblings pay for the ticket, which I find is stupid.
I wish red light tickets took pictures of the driver, and not the plate. Yes I know it has no insurance complications, but on 2 instances where my father got a red light ticket on a shared vehicle, no one wants to admit they ran the red. So my dad makes all of my siblings pay for the ticket, which I find is stupid.
I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here because all this quote does is contradict your whole argument. How closely did you read it? Even if you read the report by The London Road Safety Strategy, which is brought up in the London meetings, no one is denying rear end crashes increase. The point made in both quotes is that while rear end collisions increase, angled collisions decrease. So what they are saying is, would you rather be rear ended by a braking vehicle going the same direction or hit on an angle by a car going a different direction at a higher rate of speed? It's like the argument that seat belts and/or air bags increase chest, neck, arm, and head injuries while the alternative is you're ejected from the windshield and you're dead. I really don't have much of an opinion on red light cameras. I've never received a ticket through one. I can't say i've seen a "cheap" camera ticket given where I would have rolled my eyes. Probably all the rlc tickets i've seen through this forum were more than well deserved. Going through a red light is stupid, no matter how late you are. I can see the argument for someone who doesn't fully complete a stop on a right turn (even though illegal), but the cameras are good at filtering out those who may roll versus those that go now and ask questions later. That being said, you're not exactly making great arguments. They don't give tickets for rolling right turns on red (unless you consider never slowing to below 20-30km rolling), they don't increase insurance rates, and no one is denying (not even the City of London) that rear end collisions increase.
250alp wrote:
"Regarding the results from the time series analyses of red light running crashes, when considering the strongest evidence only (effects significant at 5% level), there was a 46% decrease in right angle crashes at camera intersections and a 42% increase in rear end crashes. Given that rear end crashes are typically less severe than right angle crashes and the fact that this negative side effect can be rectified using mitigating strategies such as improving signage and education about the functioning of the photo cameras, it appears the photo enforcement safety program has had a positive net effect on traffic safety in the city of Winnipeg."
I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here because all this quote does is contradict your whole argument. How closely did you read it? Even if you read the report by The London Road Safety Strategy, which is brought up in the London meetings, no one is denying rear end crashes increase.
The London Road Safety Strategy wrote:
Studies show that angle collisions, which are usually the most severe type of collision, are reduced by 25% when RLCs are used. The number of rear-end collisions may increase up to 15% as more drivers are stopping at the red signal. Overall there is a net safety improvement and a positive overall safety cost benefit.
The point made in both quotes is that while rear end collisions increase, angled collisions decrease. So what they are saying is, would you rather be rear ended by a braking vehicle going the same direction or hit on an angle by a car going a different direction at a higher rate of speed? It's like the argument that seat belts and/or air bags increase chest, neck, arm, and head injuries while the alternative is you're ejected from the windshield and you're dead.
I really don't have much of an opinion on red light cameras. I've never received a ticket through one. I can't say i've seen a "cheap" camera ticket given where I would have rolled my eyes. Probably all the rlc tickets i've seen through this forum were more than well deserved. Going through a red light is stupid, no matter how late you are. I can see the argument for someone who doesn't fully complete a stop on a right turn (even though illegal), but the cameras are good at filtering out those who may roll versus those that go now and ask questions later.
That being said, you're not exactly making great arguments. They don't give tickets for rolling right turns on red (unless you consider never slowing to below 20-30km rolling), they don't increase insurance rates, and no one is denying (not even the City of London) that rear end collisions increase.
LIVE debate now! London Councillor just asked about RH turn red lights, "YES you will get a $325 ticket unless you make a full stop". I warned you guys, the money is too lucrative. Of course the robotic cameras never make mistakes and they are always calibrated fairly and maintained properly... which is why the State of NJ is shutting them down.
LIVE debate now!
London Councillor just asked about RH turn red lights, "YES you will get a $325 ticket unless you make a full stop".
I warned you guys, the money is too lucrative.
Of course the robotic cameras never make mistakes and they are always calibrated fairly and maintained properly... which is why the State of NJ is shutting them down.
Apparently it passed, LONDONER's get out your wallet and get ready for money to leave the economy. The represented motorists is fair game for paying for broke governments. 5yrs from now? when the whole program fails you can revisit this post. Like one of the fine Councillors said on LIVE streaming 'takes money away from the local economy for dubious results that longer yellow light times will solve and then the business case falls apart'... I believe it was Councillor Michael van Holst, good man and here is an article he worked on with LFP. http://www.lfpress.com/2015/12/27/red-f ... ht-cameras
Apparently it passed, LONDONER's get out your wallet and get ready for money to leave the economy. The represented motorists is fair game for paying for broke governments.
5yrs from now? when the whole program fails you can revisit this post.
Like one of the fine Councillors said on LIVE streaming 'takes money away from the local economy for dubious results that longer yellow light times will solve and then the business case falls apart'...
I believe it was Councillor Michael van Holst, good man and here is an article he worked on with LFP.
"46% increase in rear end collisions at Red Light Traffic Cameras." Why do they happen? Because instead of a yellow amber light meaning "proceed with caution", citizens of London will be scared to death of this draconian fine and will be slamming on the brakes. I will and you will, admit it. It gets better, now you or your family member or friend is at fault for hitting the person stopped at a yellow traffic light and your insurance will go up plus the heavy demerit penalty. Bottom line London Councillors choose to ignore the lessons learned from USA cities that are pulling the plugs on red light cameras due to: poor business case, corruption, increasing yellow light times by 0.5 sec or more and angry voters. http://abc7ny.com/traffic/new-jersey-dr ... nt/416041/
"46% increase in rear end collisions at Red Light Traffic Cameras."
Why do they happen?
Because instead of a yellow amber light meaning "proceed with caution", citizens of London will be scared to death of this draconian fine and will be slamming on the brakes.
I will and you will, admit it.
It gets better, now you or your family member or friend is at fault for hitting the person stopped at a yellow traffic light and your insurance will go up plus the heavy demerit penalty.
Bottom line London Councillors choose to ignore the lessons learned from USA cities that are pulling the plugs on red light cameras due to: poor business case, corruption, increasing yellow light times by 0.5 sec or more and angry voters.
Perhaps those who are driving will now actually leave enough space in front of them to come to a safe stop if the person in front has to "slam on their brakes" It's no different than if that person had to do the same if a child ran onto the road.
Perhaps those who are driving will now actually leave enough space in front of them to come to a safe stop if the person in front has to "slam on their brakes"
It's no different than if that person had to do the same if a child ran onto the road.
Not sure whose side you are on? More government control or more trust to the people? Advanced societies don't need a policeman on every corner. Advanced societies people police themselves and don't hand over their destiny to Politicians who don't have a clue what they are voting on. Some of us see photo radar, red light cameras, average speed calculators as money scams with questionable safety benefits when you actually look at the DATA vs the headlines. ONTARIO pulled the plug on the photo radar experiment in 1995, 20+ years ago after making $19,000,000 in 11 months and what happened on our freeways NOTHING. ON still has the safest highways in N.American, perhaps that is because only 2% of fatalities happen on 400 series highways in the first place. -SAE paper 960439. Starting to think the purpose of this bulletin board is support more government intervention to drive business for Paralegals and Lawyers? Who funds this site?
Not sure whose side you are on? More government control or more trust to the people? Advanced societies don't need a policeman on every corner. Advanced societies people police themselves and don't hand over their destiny to Politicians who don't have a clue what they are voting on.
Some of us see photo radar, red light cameras, average speed calculators as money scams with questionable safety benefits when you actually look at the DATA vs the headlines.
ONTARIO pulled the plug on the photo radar experiment in 1995, 20+ years ago after making $19,000,000 in 11 months and what happened on our freeways NOTHING.
ON still has the safest highways in N.American, perhaps that is because only 2% of fatalities happen on 400 series highways in the first place. -SAE paper 960439.
Starting to think the purpose of this bulletin board is support more government intervention to drive business for Paralegals and Lawyers?
Uh yeah, anyone disagreeing with you must be shilling for the man. Clearly some just don't see red light cameras as the Orwellian threat to free society that you do.
250alp wrote:
Starting to think the purpose of this bulletin board is support more government intervention to drive business for Paralegals and Lawyers?
Who funds this site?
Uh yeah, anyone disagreeing with you must be shilling for the man.
Clearly some just don't see red light cameras as the Orwellian threat to free society that you do.
Whether we agree with something or not, it doesn't change whether a comment is factual accurate. - Red light camera tickets don't increase insurance rates. - Red light cameras don't ticket every driver who rolls a right on red. If you're so passionate about the issue, perhaps you should look at a RLC ticket and see how that idea is impossible without taking a picture of every car that uses the right turn lane. - "Soldiers died for a freedom and now we are letting unrepresentative government take away our freedoms ". Soldiers didn't die for your freedom to drive through a red light because you're not free to drive in the first place. I don't agree with everything in the HTA, but driving is not a right whether I like it or not. Besides, using soldiers as a pawn for some argument is tacky. - Trying to use the argument that poor innocent family members are now slamming into the rear of other vehicles, also tacky and already illegal. People (tailgators) who slam into the rear of another vehicle aren't the victims, which is why they can be charged. Hazards on the road appear all the time whether it's another vehicle, slow traffic, basketball, child, garbage can, piece of lumber, whatever. Those people are allowed to brake as need be without you injuring or possibly killing them in the process. There is already a law to prevent your dilemma, yet your solution seems to be to add even more safeguards (e.g. extending yellow lights), which condtradicts the whole nanny state mentality you're trying so hard to fight. If you were an individual who opposes the use of RLC in your area, I commend you. There should always be a discussion from both sides of the fence on these issue. However, you've made some pretty big statements here.
250alp wrote:
Not sure whose side you are on? More government control or more trust to the people? Advanced societies don't need a policeman on every corner. Advanced societies people police themselves and don't hand over their destiny to Politicians who don't have a clue what they are voting on.
Some of us see photo radar, red light cameras, average speed calculators as money scams with questionable safety benefits when you actually look at the DATA vs the headlines.
ONTARIO pulled the plug on the photo radar experiment in 1995, 20+ years ago after making $19,000,000 in 11 months and what happened on our freeways NOTHING.
ON still has the safest highways in N.American, perhaps that is because only 2% of fatalities happen on 400 series highways in the first place. -SAE paper 960439.
Starting to think the purpose of this bulletin board is support more government intervention to drive business for Paralegals and Lawyers?
Who funds this site?
Whether we agree with something or not, it doesn't change whether a comment is factual accurate.
- Red light camera tickets don't increase insurance rates.
- Red light cameras don't ticket every driver who rolls a right on red. If you're so passionate about the issue, perhaps you should look at a RLC ticket and see how that idea is impossible without taking a picture of every car that uses the right turn lane.
- "Soldiers died for a freedom and now we are letting unrepresentative government take away our freedoms ". Soldiers didn't die for your freedom to drive through a red light because you're not free to drive in the first place. I don't agree with everything in the HTA, but driving is not a right whether I like it or not. Besides, using soldiers as a pawn for some argument is tacky.
- Trying to use the argument that poor innocent family members are now slamming into the rear of other vehicles, also tacky and already illegal. People (tailgators) who slam into the rear of another vehicle aren't the victims, which is why they can be charged. Hazards on the road appear all the time whether it's another vehicle, slow traffic, basketball, child, garbage can, piece of lumber, whatever. Those people are allowed to brake as need be without you injuring or possibly killing them in the process. There is already a law to prevent your dilemma, yet your solution seems to be to add even more safeguards (e.g. extending yellow lights), which condtradicts the whole nanny state mentality you're trying so hard to fight.
If you were an individual who opposes the use of RLC in your area, I commend you. There should always be a discussion from both sides of the fence on these issue. However, you've made some pretty big statements here.
I'm not sure why the implementation of red light cameras would necessarily preclude a change in timing of the amber lights as well. I think red light cameras can help increase motorist safety but obviously shouldn't be the only consideration. I'm not aware of any Municipalities in Ontario that have changed the timing of the lights post traffic camera installation. I'd also point out that in locally from what I've read, red light cameras seem to be beneficial in the long run. There tends to be a spike in rear end collisions for the first few years but afterwards a drop in overall collisions. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2011/10 ... _show.html
I'm not sure why the implementation of red light cameras would necessarily preclude a change in timing of the amber lights as well. I think red light cameras can help increase motorist safety but obviously shouldn't be the only consideration. I'm not aware of any Municipalities in Ontario that have changed the timing of the lights post traffic camera installation. I'd also point out that in locally from what I've read, red light cameras seem to be beneficial in the long run. There tends to be a spike in rear end collisions for the first few years but afterwards a drop in overall collisions. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2011/10 ... _show.html
Hi so I have a bizzare situation. Today I received a summons for "being the owner of a motor vehicle bearing Vehicle Identification Number ###, failed to submit the vehicle, equipment or drawn vehicle for inspection or tests as required by an officer" for a vehicle I previously owned. Apparently a violation of HTA 82(9).
The date of offense is June 15, the summons was issued on October 26th and I…
Hi, I need some help for the ticket of lmproper left turn.
When i drove my car from east to west, intending to make a left turn and stop in front of stop line. There was a car in front of me, which has turn on yellow light. The light was turning red and then I thought I cannot leave in the intersection and turned, an incoming car was runing the light and hit me. No one got hurt but both cars had…
Have a ticket in which the radar used was a Genesis VP Directional. I had downloaded the manual for a Genesis VP but I now realize that the unit is not the same so it is the wrong manual. My trial is very soon so I do not have time to ask for disclosure of the manual.
Does anyone have access to an electronic version of the manual for Genesis VP Directional?
I was pulled over today in the city of Oakville for going 75 in a 40 zone. However, I am 100 percent certain that I was going only 50 in the 40 zone. When I was pulled over, I was driving my Dad's car which I felt was the reason I was getting stopped since two teenagers driving a 2013 S Class. He asked does I know why I am being pulled over and I…
I really need help on fighting my 9 tickets i received from one police officer. Here is some background of what happened!
I was caught speeding 66km on a 40km (school zone) on January 29, 2010. I was driving my friend's car and turns out she didnt renew the validation on the vehicle and didnt leave the up to date insurance paper on the car.
Hey question that I think here's probably the best place to get the answer:
I was charged with a careless driving offence in oct, trail in early april, so as of right now my insurance record is 100% clean... except the officer did file an accident report at the scene where I was classified at fault due to it being PI (although very minor). The person I hit did not sue etc, so the insurance company…
Very much unintentionally passed a stopped bus, with sign and flashing lights. Didn't realize I had done it until I was at the end of the bus. I'll save you my sob story, but it was truly accidental. I'm generally very cautious and have a perfect driving record. Never been stopped.
While I realize if a cop had seen me that I would have gotten a ticket, there were none in sight. Though I may very…
I was recently pulled over for running a red and I wasnt able to find my wallet in the car at the time to hand over my license. I had a passport in the vehicle that he used. The wallet was in the vehicle, it just fell through the seats. (Tough to find a black leather wallet in a black/black leather truck at night).
The officer still wrote the tickets for both he signed the one ticket (failure to…
I was passing a vehicle that was going slow for me and there was an oncoming vehicle coming at me. I speed up to get around the person I was passing and the oncoming vehicle turns out to be a cop who turns around and tickets me for going 110km in a 80km zone. How does it work with passing a vehicle? Once I passed the vehicle I went back down to my original speed of just under 100. The officer…
I picked up a brand new (old stock) Fuzzbuster a while ago at auction (wopping $5!!) and I want to mount it on the dash of my old GTO as a cool accessory when I show it at car shows. But I'm not sure if it's legal or not.
Here's my thoughts:
- It is early 70's technology (x-band) so it won't detect modern police radar. That's assuming no police force uses the old x-band frequency.
Hi guys, I'm still a little in shock of getting my first traffic ticket...
On Monday afternoon, I was returning from Toronto to Ottawa on HW416, I was driving about 15 over 100 like always. Then a car came very close to me on the left lane and made me nervous, I speed up unintentionally to pass the car and change lane, but while doing that a police car pull out of the median. He was hiding in…
May i ask this question regarding transport trucks limited to 105 km/h. Moving road blocks or safety?
IMO it isnt speed that kills. I find transport trucks infact help keep the road going. With cars that choose to not move to the right and slow down the middle lane the trucks would try to pass in their passing lane therefore the slower traffic would move right.
Received a notice from the police that a motion is being put forward to adjourn upcoming trial date. Notice indicates that an officer has sworn an affidavit that the crucial witness cannot attend date trial is set for (we know there is a social engagement at 7:30 pm for the witness, trial time is 1:30 pm). This further delay is a big problem to my daughter's case. She is moving away to…
This is what happened. I was travelling west on a four lane city street that was very light with traffic. I was making a left hand turn into a wide driveway of a business. There was traffic lights about 100 yards past the driveway and were red for the east-west traffic. I was in the left lane with my signal on and there was no oncoming traffic due to the red light. I was slowed right down…
I was driving my families older car and got pulled over, and the police officer informed me my plate was dirty. He issued me a ticket of $110 for the 13(2) act and obstruct plate as the offense. He informed me that such a plate could be used to avoid red lights as well as 407 tolls, also that buying a new plate can help to lower the ticket if I fight the charge, and that he also took a picture…
I received a red light camera ticket. In the picture, you see an ambulance in front of me with flashing lights. I had moved to alleviate the traffic behind me for the emergency vehicles coming behind it.
Is this a possible defense, if so, does anyone know any good case law to justify this position?
what happens if they charge someone for driving at 151Km/hr in montreal and they put for trial, appear after some months and sadly lost the trial ?
In montreal its $300 fine and 5demerit points ...
I heard Ontario and Qubec share the information. So once the trial is over ( and when the file moved to ontario) will his car gets towed and licence get suspended for 7days (later to 30 days ) ? and he…
I got a notice in the mail that trial is set four weeks from today, so it's time to request disclosure. I have zero chance of getting an 11b since trial is less than two months after the offense date and the officer did not reduce the charge. I really want to try and create delays on the trial, to reduce the chance of the officer showing up on multiple occasions. Is there any known loop-holes…
This weekend my father was involved in an accident with a transit bus in Burlington, ON. After the police showed up he was charged with "Fail to obey stop sign" Sec. 136(1)(a). At this particular intersection there NO stop signs but there are traffic lights. There is construction going on there so one of the light posts is smaller.
Driving conditions were terribly wet and visibility was low.…
So my boyfriend and I recently started dating. I have a vehicle that was insured. Insurance cost too much and I found it was just as easy to walk to work due to how close it was. But I didn't want to get rid of my car just yet, plus I'm still making payments on it as well. When we moved into our appartment together, I had it towed to my parking spot out back.
I was making a left hand legal turn on a green light, a driver came through the lane I was supposed to be going into ran the red and hit me head on as I was turning into my lane. When the officer came he was telling me that I was racing and driving recklessly because apparently there was reports of street racing in the area. I was not charged on the scene for this but I'm scared i am going to be…
I got a ticket for failure to surrender insurance because I did not have my new insurance stubs with me, just a bunch of expired ones. My policy number has not changed, so I asked the officer to just run the policy number so I could prove that I was in fact insured. He said they don't have that ability, handed me the ticket and reminded me that my car could have been impounded.
So I'm in a bit of a pickle and would appreciate if someone could clarify something for me.
I'm less than a month away (test on April 6th) from getting my full G license, and got a speeding ticket recently. The ticket was for 49km/h over the posted limit of 100km/h on the 403 in Oakville/Halton region, but was reduced from the initial ~60km/h over.
