Search found 2111 matches

1) I would say no. Unless there was some gross negligence in the way the road is designed, I'd think the onus would be on you to drive more cautiously.
2) Depends what you mean. Did the officer completely reject evidence to support his view? Or did he simply have grounds to believe you were at fault and acted accordingly. Keep in mind that once an ...

I heard that some of the more reflective types of paint contain glass beads and other reflective materials. Not sure how true that is, but it apparently makes the paint quite expensive, which would explain why broke Governments don't use it. I'd personally love to see cat's eye reflectors on all the highways marking lanes, but I guess they're even ...

I'm not sure I understand what you did. Are you saying you went straight through to get back on the 401 or you did turn off? What were you actually charged with?

In regards to the arrows painted onto the ground, they're not legally enforceable. What you'd have to look for (and what appear to be there on Googlemaps) are the black square signs with ...

I believe you can see the road on the satellite map, at the intersection of Tuscan Gate & Sheppard. I'm guessing Tuscan becomes Carl Hall on the other side of Sheppard. I can see one no right on red sign on a traffic light on the west side of the road. It looks like it should be visible to traffic, but no idea where the other two are.

The charge would be "Drive Without Proper Headlights or Rear Light", which falls under section 62 of the HTA, with subsections for different vehicle classes.

It's a $110 fine ($240 for commercial vehicles).

In heavy rain or snow, the moisture in the air will start to absorb the signal emitted by the radar, absorbing or reflecting it. This weakens the signal, shortening the range at which the radar will pick up a signal. This loss of signal does not actually change the reading however. Think of it like a radio station that you can get perfectly on ...

No, weather like rain or snow won't affect the accuracy of radar, only the range at which it can obtain a reading.

It's not illegal to publish the location of such activities, though I notice many sites/services draw the line at identifying RIDE checkpoints.

I'd actually argue motorists being aware of speed traps is a good thing. At the end of the day compliance is the goal, not charges. If people know/suspect there's a speed trap in a certain area, they'll ...

It pretty much is law. Section 62 of the HTA states lights are required "any time when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 150 metres or less". So basically if the weather is bad and you can't see a car from 150 meters away, lights are ...

Just to confirm, the year on a ticket refers to the plate sticker, not the vehicle itself. Regardless, that info no longer appears on newer tickets.

An incorrect fine typically invalidates the ticket. If the Justice of the Peace who reviews the ticket notices the error, they should quash it right away. If they fail to notice the error, you'll have to take some additional steps, but the ticket should still be quashed. Search the forum for threads with London v. Young which talk about this.

A) Nothing really.
B) There's isn't much to fight the tickets on. Best bet is a plea deal.
C) Can probably meet with the prosecutor on the morning of the trial and try and work out a deal. I can see 3 & 4 being dropped easily, not so sure about 2. Probably at least be offered a reduced fine.
D) Yes, although it's the CAIA, not CAIC
E) No, the ...

What's a TCIC report?

You're trying to make it sound like a trap or conspiracy theory, when what you're describing is neither.

The first scenario you describe, non payment of fines, is simply the fault of the driver.

The second scenario, a clerical error on the part of the MTO, could easily be resolved in Court. Simply hold onto all documentation (receipts, notice of ...

1) Only the actual vehicle owner can be charged for operating a motor vehicle with no insurance.
2) It's certainly possible.

Very likely not lawful, though very hard to file a complaint if you don't even know what police service it was, let alone cruiser # or plate.

Simply contact the police when safe to do so. Once you have the other vehicle's information though (i.e. licence plate), I would stop following. You may have had good intentions, but it could easily make the situation worse.

It doesn't violate any law, nor is there a requirement to maintain constant visual contact. If visual contact is lost however, it could help raise reasonable doubt at trial.

Do you actually have the information for the vehicle with no lights? Or did it leave the scene?

I'm kind of curious why your insurance company is so hung up on a formal statement.

What youre asking would really be a question for the civil courts, where theyd have to decide if the Township exercised due care in maintaining the road in light of the construction, etc. Its not something thats covered by the Highway Traffic Act.

Again, there is no requirement for police to obtain a formal written statement from involved drivers. You could certainly contact the original investigating officer and enquire about providing a statement, though I imagine theyd be hesitant to accept it so long after the incident.

There should still be synopsis of what happened on the accident ...

There's always a chance to fight a ticket, but it's impossible to know what those chances are without further information.

You're best bet is to request disclosure and see what the officer's evidence is, and see if there are any weak points on which you could try and fight the charge.

Be aware however that if you do go to trial, the ticket will ...

Correct.

The only act that Im aware of governing police conduct in Ontario is the Police Services Act.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p15/latest/rso-1990-c-p15.html

You can look through the various regulations, but as stated above there are none that would appear to govern speed enforcement.

As OPS Copper said, many US states such as ...

Its common practice for police services to charge for completed accident reports. Typically youre given a basic copy at the roadside, but the final report is kept by the police. Normally your insurance provider orders the report from the police service.

As for statements, there is no requirement for police to obtain a formal written statement from ...

You have 15 days from conviction to file an appeal.

First, you need to determine if you have sufficient grounds to appeal the decision. The fact that you dont agree with being found guilty isnt sufficient in itself. You have to show that the Justice of the Peace made an error in law or fact. You list several possible defences in your first post ...

I would request disclosure. I've never heard of police being allowed to raise speed readings regardless of cosine effect and/or radar tolerances. I think you would have good grounds to fight the charge since the Crown would have difficulty proving a speed greater then what the radar showed. I'd suggest consulting a paralegal.

Unlikely. Police aren't allowed to modify the speed based on what they believe the cosign error to be. The offence should be for the speed shown on the radar. And I really can't see an officer caring about an extra 3 km/h when the speed is already so excessive.

If you were actually charged with an offence, there is no guarantee it will be dropped simply because you've fixed the problem. Your best option is to request a first attendance meeting with the Crown and see if they're willing to withdraw the charge. The Crown is the only person who can withdraw the charge.