Got this ticket on March 6.

Location: Waterloo (King St North)

Offence: Pedestrian Fail to use Crosswalk

Contrary to: Highway Traffic Act, Sect. 144 (22)

Set fine: $35.00, total payable $50.00

I have a drivers license and I showed it to him, so it's recorded on the ticket.

I already chose to contest, I have an early resolution meeting notice for June 17.

I wasn't actually at a crosswalk, I was about 20-30 metres from the nearest crosswalk, basically in the middle of the block. Any point in contesting it?

...well that's a question only you can really answer.

I can tell you there are no demerit points involved. If you plan on contesting the ticket, you might want to try and think of some sort of defence.

It really irritates me that away from an intersection I'm not allowed to cross -- plus -- how many people get a jaywalking ticket? It's crazy!

Anyway, I previously heard of this idea that "mid-block" crossing might allow me to contest.

This article from my home-town of Hamilton describes an interview with a Police Constable there, which leads me to think I might be able to get off because I was "mid-block": http://raisethehammer.org/article/1355/ ... the_street "Wagner responded that the Police "have a high likelihood of getting a conviction" for mid-block crossings in the downtown area, since blocks are short and pedestrians are rarely far from a marked crossing. However, conviction is less likely in more residential areas where blocks are longer and crosswalks are farther apart."

There's a longer article from a non-expert, here: http://www.bikehounds.ca/2011/04/the-de ... -hamilton/

It's funny... I rarely if ever write this ticket (the only time I do is when the pedestrian nearly gets themself killed)... so I don't have much experience with convictions/testifying to this charge.

Please update the board on whatever happens- I'm personally interested in the outcome! At the end of the day, why not push the envelope a bit? It's only $50.00

Apparently there was a fatal accident involving a pedestrian on a nearby street about a year ago.

Another possible explanation is that there is a police station around the corner, and they had nothing better to do.

Another possible explanation might be they are enforcing laws because that's what tax payers pay them to do.

I remember reading about it in the local newspapers at the time. The police were running a pedestrian safety blitz, with basically zero tolerance for pedestrians and motorists who werent obeying the law regarding crossings. Heres a link to police services media release: http://www.wrps.on.ca/news/police-condu ... ring-march

Not sure where you were stopped on King, but the intersection of University and King has the most pedestrian accidents in the Region, so probably lots of enforcement in the vicinity.

Not sure what your chances are of fighting it in Court, really have no experience with that section. The Crown will probably offer you a reduced fine if you agree to a plea. I guess it really depends how much time youre willing to invest in fighting it.

Stanton wrote:

http://www.wrps.on.ca/news/police-condu ... ring-march

Thanks for the link!

Not sure where you were stopped on King, but the intersection of University and King has the most pedestrian accidents in the Region, so probably lots of enforcement in the vicinity.

My office is by King & Erb. I crossed King about halfway between Erb & Dupont (the next street north).

Not sure what your chances are of fighting it in Court, really have no experience with that section. The Crown will probably offer you a reduced fine if you agree to a plea. I guess it really depends how much time youre willing to invest in fighting it.

Well, it will be interesting. The money is irrelevant. I don't see any downside to fight the ticket, as the maximum fee is $50.

I finally found a good article on this subject! http://spacing.ca/toronto/2007/11/20/pe ... ive-guide/ :

There is no definition of what "Where" means, exactly, but since section 144 only deals with behaviour at signals themselves, this sub-section refers to the area immediately adjacent to the signals and marked crossing. It basically means that if a pedestrian is at or approaching a marked crossing, they have to cross within the lines — they cant cross beside the lines or step outside them. It does not apply to an extended section of the street.

I was about 25 metres from the nearest crossing.

(I also found http://www.nowtoronto.com/music/story.c ... ent=154461)

It would be nice if the city would fix the streets to be less dangerous rather than forcing pedestrians to jump through hoops.

tdottopcop wrote:

Another possible explanation might be they are enforcing laws because that's what tax payers pay them to do.

Traffic enforcement is easy and lucrative for cops. Very many are on the sunshine list. They get paid overtime in many cases to show up to your court date. Some make an absolute killing from constantly going to court. It's like running a business. More tickets that go to court equal more money in cops pockets.

What is sad is that some cops are terrible offenders themselves. I see numerous HTA violations thought the week committed by the men and women in blue.

It's quite sad that the two recent deaths of officers were caused by failure to follow the very laws that they supposedly enforce.

Two officers who recently lost their lives were ejected from their vehicles moving at excessive speeds well above speed limits.

Traffic enforcement is also safer than going after the real criminals .

Can't say I blame them for wanting to do the 'safer ' jobs and go home to their families unscathed.

I forgot to come back and report on what happened with my ticket.

tl;dr I went to court and won.

Longer version. This was a number of months ago so I don't remember in perfect detail. I went to the court in Kitchener for the appointed time and there were a large number of people (maybe 50) all with appointments with the prosecutors at the same time. I was forced to wait due to my name being near the end of the alphabet. There were I think 3 prosecutors in offices taking people pretty much randomly. It was somewhat amusing to listen to the silly arguments that some people were trying to make.

When my term came I was well-dressed, polite, and had my arguments well-prepared. Prosecutor was also very polite. I said that I'd crossed

mid-block" and was not near an intersection. Prosecutor expressed his irritation with these types of jaywalking tickets and that he didn't support them. He said that he would recommend that I pay no fine. I agreed that was satisfactory. I don't know if that meant that the ticket was still officially considered valid but the fine was eliminated, or if the ticket was stricken, or what the legal detail was. I think that my approach and my discovery of the key phrase "mid-block crossing" helped.

I went to the court and had to wait for another 30 minutes or so. It was kind of a ritualistic affair. When I was called I went up and the ritual was different from most people -- they didn't ask me to say that I agreed with the facts or anything, just said that I could go.

So, that's it -- I fought the man and won. It took some time and effort but I got a good story out of it. Thanks for the help.