While I do understand the principle of absolute liability, meaning it only has to be proven that it was a) the right car, and b) the light was red, so that with that evidence there is no defence, here are the particulars I am interested in:
The intersection does not have a sign indicating a red light camera is in operation. I believe this is a requirement in Ontario.
The stop line was recently moved and repainted, however the old line is still partially visible.
Could it not be argued that the camera is operating in violation of the law(s) that would allow it by not having a sign or a clearly marked stop line? And if so, could it be argued that the evidence collected by that camera should not be allowed in court and therefore the ticket withdrawn/dismissed?
Thank you for your input.
I have never heard of any such requirement for a red light camera sign. The sign doesn't tell you to do anything. There's tons of signs that are a courtesy (e.g. "new" sign warning of changes to signage), but they are not a requirement.
As for the line, i'm not sure what you're trying to say there since these cameras are activated partly by speed. Unless these lines are pretty far apart and you violently hit the brakes, I don't see how it would activate. Did you stop before the intersection or not?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest