Disobey Sign 182(2) - Municipality Of Markham

I got a ticket today at the intersection of Bayview and Procter for disobeying a no right turn between 6AM and 9AM sign. I did not see the sign because of its funky placement way before the intersection. You can see the picture of the sign in Google maps:

(http://maps.google.com/maps?q=bayview+a ... M8ZcepCyGA)

I will definitely take this ticket to court since I do not want the 2 demerit points (the officer suggested that option himself which is ironic!). Also, I would like to keep my driver's record clean since the damn insurance companies make you pay a lot for even small tickets with no demerit points. Do I have any chance of pleading not guilty and defending myself successfully or should I take whatever offer the prosecutor through at me before the trial (i.e. reduced fine and demerit points). Any advice on what argument would work in court? Can I argue the placement of the sign is funky? I think the bilingual sign argument does not apply here since it is the Municipality of Markham.

Thanks in advance.

I got the same ticket today, I didn't see the sign too! What did you decide? Are you going to court?

Is it my impression or the the lights and sign are a bit too far away from the intersection?

That's a good 20 meters there.

I've got a ticket at the same intersection (Bayview and Proctor) 2 weeks ago (apr 28) on a rainy day. In that morning more than 10 cars turned right on Proctor while I was waiting for the police officer. I agree the sign is far from the intersection. I am going to fight in court and bring some pics from the scene to explain how easily the sign could be missed. I will also get some pics from other intersections where the same kind of signs are very obvious and can't be missed.

When I click on the link in the first post, it appears that there's another sign posted about 75-100 prior to the intersection advising no turns as well. With two signs posted you might have a hard time arguing you couldn't read them.

Stanton wrote:When I click on the link in the first post, it appears that there's another sign posted about 75-100 prior to the intersection advising no turns as well. With two signs posted you might have a hard time arguing you couldn't read them.

Yes, and there it is...

Yes, there is a sign but very far. If you decide to turn right after passing the sign as its happened to me, shouldnt be a sign placed at the corner as you turn right and not beyond the intersection? Ive taken some photos at other intersections where the signs are more visible in any weather condition. Would that help in court?

Here is an example:

I think you'd have a very hard time arguing that you ignored the first sign because you weren't planning on turning yet. The sign is posted at a perfect position since it warns you right before you merge into the turn lane. If it was an advance notice sign two intersections back you might have an argument, but the sign was still visible regardless of your intentions.

Edit: Photos of other intersections wouldn't be relevant in Court. The only issue is signage at the intersection where the offence took place.

It wasnt my intention to argue, I asked for an opinion on this specific point to find out if it would help.

Thanks, I get it now.

Best bet would be to look for a reduced charge in this case...