"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
I will be going to trial for my red light camera offence.
I'll be arguing two issues, centered on the fact that there are two essential elements of 144(18) - a) a vehicle approaching the intersection shall stop; and b) the vehicle shall not proceed until green. Both essential elements must be contravened beyond a reasonable doubt to be an offence.
1) My ticket says I (being the owner) am "charged…
I know that the RIDE program has been covered extensively in these great forums, but I have a question about the stop itself:
I recently was stopped for a RIDE Program and the officer asked me to roll the window down all of the way (I had it at half and could easily communicate with them). I told them that I could hear them just fine and they insisted I roll it down all of the way. Again I told…
Not sure the right place for this so if it needs to be moved please do so.
I was stopped today for 15 over the speed limit, I gave all the documents to the officer and he said he could not accept a photocopy of my ownership only the original I had a photo copy front and back and I had my plate sticker number with it.
he gave me a ticket for HWY ACT Section 7(5)(a) he said only the original would…
Hey! I'm from Sudbury Ontario. Hope that general talk is fine for this subject
I am very serious about looking for exact ruling about underfacing lighting
Section 14 clearly states:
Red and blue lights to the front restricted
(14.1) In addition to the lighting requirements in this Part, a police department vehicle may carry lamps that cast red and blue lights, but no other motor vehicle shall carry…
i was driving my dad's car when i was caught by the red light camera in Brampton. My dad would've to take time off work to go ask for a trial and then go to one.
Can i represent him? if yes, what do i need to do?
I was pulled over and told I went through a red light during a right turn. I learned through a friend who is a police constable that the one who pulled me over is new to the job (under a year, and possibly even the first month or two of real duty).
I was given a ticket for $180. I have some questions:
(1) Is this offense automatically associated with 3 demerit points? I see no mention of them on…
I got a ticket for 'Disobey Stop Sign' in November of 2013 (in York Region), requested disclosure and went to court in August of 2014. At my first appearance, I did not plea but requested an ajournment to to consult legal advice. The JOP set the next appearance in September.
I contacted a paralegal about my options. He told me that on my next appearance, if the police officer did not show, the…
I had a trial and found guilty, but the trial seemed to go wrong since the beginning.
The JP asked me if i am intending to take the stand- I said NO.
I asked how to submit my evidence-documents and photos.
JP said-i have to take the stand if i want to submit evidence.(Now i am finding this is wrong-i could introduce my evidence during cross examination and my defense would be much stronger)
Ottawa, Canada (AHN) - Beginning Tuesday, or April Fool's Day 2008, fines on Quebec drivers caught overspeeding will be doubled. It is not only the money penalty that will go up, but also demerit points.
The new law, Bill 42, is similar to Ontario's street racing rule. It stipulates fines for motorists who drive at over 40 km/h at under 60 km/h zones, speed at 50 km/h at 60 to 90 km/h areas and…
Make big trucks go slower and the roads will become safer.
Obvious, isn't it? It's also obvious when you look out the window that the world is flat.
Last Monday, truckers in Ontario tried to mount a convoy to Queen's Park to show their opposition to electronic speed limiters. These devices, electronic chips in trucks' engine management systems, restrict speeds…
I was out on a four lane highway around Orangeville Ontario and I noticed a school bus coming south (I was going north). I kept my eyes on the bus in case it was going to stop. As I approached it, it was slowing down a little, but no lights, and especially no arm with the STOP sign. As I was just about to pass the bus, I still did not see the lights, nor did I see the STOP sign.
Hey everyone first off I'd like to say great website, I have been reading and it is very useful
I'm posting today as I'd like to get some feedback on my situation and have a couple of questions. Please excuse the vagueness in some areas - I don't want my case to be identifiable given the small town.
So I was driving up north and was pulled over by an OPP SUV for doing 31 over. Cop drove past me,…
Driving on a 80km/hr highway the car ahead hits the brakes and slows to 55, l slow down right behind him no reason to slow down traffic was moving between 80 and 90. I notice the driver is on the phone and looking through papers on the passenger seat. He begins to start to go a opp officer drives by doing 80 plus in oncoming lane turns around and says l was following to close. Told him what was…
My son was making a right turn at the intersection he had a green so slowed down looked and proceeded into the turn. It was pouring rain and the was a big pool of water as he got arround the curb. He tried to keep the car going sharp right however it slid into the car making a left turn. the lane he was turning into is very narrow and at a very busy corner. He paniced and left the scene only…
I had an collision the other day. I was turing left and ran into a car going straight in the opposite direction. The insurance company has already determined that I'm at fault, since I made the left turn. But I'm wondering whether I should go on trail and at least I might get rid of the ticket. The ticket was under 142(1)
I was told that if I go on court, both the guy I hit and the officer who…
question for a friend of mine.....says she got a 3 day suspension for giving a A on a roadside. Thing is she wasnt driving. She is a g2 driver and the car was parked in a parking lot, she just ran out to get something and turned the car on. Can a 3 day be issued if you arent driving on a highway - (I've read for impaired it doesnt matter, but 3 day isnt criminal)? And is there any way to…
I can't find the category for this post so I'm posting it here.
Two questions...
1. Are golf carts considered a 'vehicle' under the Highway traffic act? I know carts can't drive across roads or on roads but if you try to bring one from the USA into Canada they are considered a 'vehicle'.
2. If you are on private property are you allowed to carry 'opened' alcohol in your golf cart? I know golf…
I got pulled over (along with about 10 other cars) for going through a road closed sign. I had just pulled out of a parking lot pretty much right beside the road closed sign, and with about 4 cars behind me there wasn't much I could do but go through, so I think I have a good chance of fighting it. However, on my ticket under the Signature of issuing Provincial Offences Officer, it's left…
I was driving westbound on Hwy. 8 earlier this month in North Dumfries Township, approaching the Cambridge city limits. The weather was clear and the roads were dry. I noticed a vehicle on the shoulder on my side of the road, pointing towards me. This didn't concern me right away, as it is a rural area and I sometimes see vehicles doing mail delivery. The vehicle then started accelerating and…
I was pulled over yesterday in a community safety zone and told I was doing 84 in a 50. When i passed the officer I looked at my odometer and I was only doing 64. I was given a summons on the spot to appear in court at the end of June. Do I have any chance in this if it comes down to his word over mine. I was in the car alone but have travelled these same roads every day, twice a day for 6 years…
who is at fault when :a) a passenger opens door and jumps out of vehicle onto the road with traffic. b) he gets hit by a car travelling in the adjoining lane. c) traffic lights were green. d) pedestrian crossing was further up and indicated "no crossing" light e) the vehicle that he exited from leaves the scene as soon as accident occurred. f) no charges have been laid after police filed report…
