Right turn on red light camera - complete stop

Good morning everyone,

I got a notice in the mail of a Red Light Camera System offense. I've been trying to do some research on this, but I don't know how out-of-date my knowledge is, and between responses of "fighting these is impossible" along with the common "people need to stop breaking the law and just pay their fines OMG CRIMINALS," I'm at a little bit of a loss. Please see the ticket (http://imageshack.com/a/img922/3210/eHeBBO.jpg)- it shows me

a) Stopped neatly behind the white light in the first picture while someone makes a left in front of me through the intersection. Note my stopping lights and right turn signal. Red light time: 12.7s

b) Proceeding safely through the intersection after stopping. The intersection is devoid of all traffic. Red light time: 14.3s

Total time: 1.6s

In both pictures it claims my speed is 30km/h, or that's what I assume that number means. I don't understand, as both the distance I travel (less than the 43ft I would have had to travel in 1.6s) contradicts this. I stopped at that light, and I have a dashcam - had this notice come earlier I could have prepared an adequate defense, but the video records over itself after a given time. I don't know why it seems to be saying I'm travelling 30km/h when I'm stopped at a red light, nor how this system is calibrated to do that if it isn't a speed offense system.

I've heard about the impossibility of fighting these tickets, but there has to be some recourse. I'm concerned too because I already tried to take this to Edward St only to be informed I HAVE to take it to Markham Rd because they repealed the "take it anywhere" law four years ago - what else has changed (I've been out of the country)? Am I still going to get a court date for next year some time?

I asked to speak to a prosecutor but the lady at the desk I believe put me for a court date and told me I'll get the notice in 4-6 weeks. I don't think this is right and I don't believe I'm guilty in any respect. I plan to go the whole route of requesting disclosure (and am aware of what I'll get) etc. Can anyone offer any insight or advice here, or at the very least do a better job of explaining what I'm looking at since the City of Toronto would rather not be so helpful?

Do I have any recourse for a dismissal? I'm a PhD student with 0 money.

You do have to make a full and complete stop before making a right turn - are you sure you did that?

These red light camera tickets are hard to fight. But they do not affect your driving record as they are unable to ascertain who the driver was at the time. The only penalty is the fine.

You can go to trial and meet with the prosecutor to have the fine reduced - let them know your financial situation.

Hi AnyyVen

So the ticket is for a violation of Section 144 (18.1) of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, which reads:

Red light

(18) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle and shall not proceed until a green indication is shown.

Certificate of offence – owner – red light camera evidence

(18.1) A person who issues a certificate of offence and offence notice under subsection 3 (2) of the Provincial Offences Act for a contravention of subsection (18) shall, despite that Act and the regulations under that Act, specify this subsection, instead of subsection (18), as the provision that was contravened, if,

(a) the person who issues the certificate of offence and offence notice believes that the offence was committed on the basis of evidence obtained through the use of a red light camera system; and

(b) the defendant is being charged as the owner of the vehicle.

So the good news is that you have been charged as the OWNER of the vehicle and not as the DRIVER. This means that you will NOT receive any demerits against your license and it should not affect your insurance at all. The bad news of course is that it is still a $325 fine

If you read Section 144 (18) carefully, it says you need to stop at the red light and can not proceed until a green light is indicated. Does this intersection have a "no right turn on red" sign? I was under the impression that, unless there is a sign prohibiting it, you can turn right on a red light in Ontario, however this particular section seems to disagree with that.

The next thing to do is go read the regulations on Red Light Cameras, which can be found here:

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/990277

As you read thru all of that, you will see that these pictures are from a TraffiStar red light system.

For the first point, read Section 3.2 (1) which explains what all the stuff on the picture means. The last column is the speed (according to the system) that you were travelling when the first picture was taken, which says 30 km/h. This is certainly a long way off of what you said (that you actually stopped). There are a couple ways that I know of that these devices can measure speed. One would be induction loops embedded in the pavement and the other would be with radar. If this system was using radar, then could it be possible that the speed of 30/km/h was from the vehicle turning thru the intersection?

The next point to consider is that in Section 4 (1) of the regulation, it says the officer needs to serve you (by mail is fine) within 23 days of the offence. According to the ticket, the deemed service date says May 17, 2017 which is 22 days. On the surface this seems okay, however I would cross-exam the officer on this point. Did the officer put the notice in an enevelope himself, put a stamp on it himself, and then place it in a Canada Post mailing box himself? If he simply signed it but then left it for somebody else to mail, then how does he know what day is was mailed? The section says that you may be served when the officer "sending the offence notice by regular prepaid mail or courier". I would argue that unless the officer put the letter in the mail box himself (or took it to the post office himself) how can he know for sure that it was "mailed" on the 17th or 18th for sure? It is certainly possible that the person who mails them out had it sitting around on their desk for a few days before they got to the post office.

The last point I would consider is cross-examining the officer on the what it says at the bottom of the ticket in the PLEASE NOTE section. "The Provincial Offences Offices has certified that the red light camera system used in the detection of this offence ... was in proper working order ... traffic signals were in proper working order". So this would bring up questions like "Officer did went out and test this system? How did you test? When did you test? How do you know it can accurately measure speed of moving vehicle? How do you know traffic lights were working properly that day? Did you observe them?"

Hope this is helpful

There's a bit of confusion over your interpretation of the first picture. All red light camera tickets will show your car right before the line. The first picture always looks like this. The intent of the first picture is to show the car approaching the intersection while the light is already red before you move over the line.

Whether or not your brake lights are active doesn't prove you've stopped, they just prove you touched your brake pedal.

Red light cameras are triggered by speed. I don't see anything abnormal based on the pictures and the data. Everything seems on par.

You'll have trouble beating this, but I can speak from experience in saying that my wife plead poor and got the fine cut pretty much in half via the early resolution meeting route.

@Anyyven - did you beat the ticket. I have a similar case where it says I am travelling 31 km/h but that is not possible in the 1.6s between the two pictures.

Did you get a ticket at the same intersection? In the OP's scan it shows the vehicle traveled just about 7 meters in 1.6 seconds which gives an AVERAGE speed of 15.8km/h. I measured it on google maps so it may be a bit off.

If he was stopped in the first picture and started moving instantly afterwards, the final speed in the second picture would be 31.2km/h.

If he was already traveling at 30km/h as the ticket suggests, then he would have traveled over 13 meters in 1.6 seconds, almost double what is shown.

The intersection is not 90 degrees so the white car in the picture is not actually making a full 90 degree turn. IMO much more likely the device picked up the speed of the white car.

Just taking two pictures leaves a lot of room for doubt in my opinion. A two second video would remove all doubt -- but maybe it would also remove too much revenue?

Red light cameras only measure your speed when you first reach the stop line. Somewhat confusingly, the speed shown in the second photograph is just a repeat of the data from the first photo. It is NOT your actual speed at the time the second photo was taken. Probably make more sense to people if they simply left it blank.

From the Red Light Camera Regulation (O. Reg. 277/99):

3. (1) A photograph taken by a red light camera system may show or have superimposed on it any of the following information:

1. The date when it was taken.

2. The municipality where it was taken.

3. The time of day when it was taken.

4. The length of time that the indication was showing red before the photograph was taken.

5. The length of time that the indication was showing amber before the photograph was taken.

6. The speed at which the vehicle shown in the photograph was travelling when the first photograph in a series of photographs was taken.

Stanton is absolutely correct regarding the speed being at the time the first photo is taken. Put simply, your wife did NOT stop at the bar in time and is guilty. As it is an absolutely liability offence, she won't have a defence.

Look at pic 1; she's going 30km and is at most 1 meter away from the stop bar. Yet, at 30km, the average braking distance is 5 meters (and that's not even factoring 'reaction time'). So, she couldn't have stopped at the stop bar (i.e. the white line) in time.

I therefore suggest you simply pay it or consider going to an early resolution meeting and get a reduction in fine. In her case, she might get a $60 discount and not much more since the light was already red for over 12.7 seconds---pretty aggravating. So, do the math on whether your time is worth the $60; otherwise, just pay the ticket.

Hello everyone,

I just wanted to reply and let everyone know that my court date is coming up in December, basically right at the edge of the 10-month mark that would otherwise see a section 11b. I appreciate all the feedback I've been provided and have some additional questions and comments.

Update:

At this point I believe an application (eg stay of proceedings) is my best course of action - in this case, on the grounds that my ability to defend myself was compromised by the manner in which I was notified. Considering I had evidence I believe disproved the claims and considering the damages from the charge - there are none - I think this is appropriate. To that end, I am interested in jurisprudence on delays of notification affecting evidence and defense (eg, a police officer pulling me over on the spot vs getting a letter six weeks later by regular mail), as well as jurisprudence on stopping distances from intersections. If anyone has any information, advice, or input on this please let me know.

My apologies for the length but I like to be thorough, just like the courts expect…

(tl;dr)/summary:

(1) Right turns on a red light are legal in Ontario unless otherwise signed. (https://www.ontario.ca/document/officia ... #section-2) Does anyone know where in the OHTA it mentions this?

(2) Im going to investigate any possible recourse via the service date information mentioned by ShrekTek.

(3) There appears to be no actual numerical limits on the stopped distance from red traffic control lights or stop signs, whether marked or unmarked. Does anyone know of any jurisprudence establishing any?

(4) It has been mentioned the speed could have been the other vehicle proceeding through the intersection. Does anyone know of any information or jurisprudence on the occurrence of this?

(5) The Red Light Camera System was certified as working, so (likely discovery) will provide this (or not). If I am not provided this (nor through disclosure, meaning the crown doesnt have it/cant use it either), I intend to challenge them to prove this.

(6) One of the important features of the law is "coming to a complete stop" and "proceeding when safe." For one, I absolutely stopped, whether or not in such a way I didnt trip the camera system: I have my own dashcam, and if I had better notification I could have provided that evidence, whether or not it assisted me. Therefore, I believe they have seriously impacted my ability to mount a defense. As well, and from the pictures, the "proceeding when safe" part is obviously fulfilled. Any comments on this approach are very welcome.

Detailed Reply

The first thing, thank you ShrekTek for a fairly significant and thorough reply. Indeed, unless signed otherwise, making a right on a red line is completely legal in Ontario provided you come to a full stop and proceed when the way is clear – I am having trouble finding clarification of this in the OHTA, but Ontarios own website mentions this (https://www.ontario.ca/document/officia ... #section-2). If anyone can provide citation from the OHTA that would be great, because Id love the exact wording.

I also never considered the aspect of the service date and that's something else I'm definitely going to look into. I have a severe problem with the manner in which I was served of this notice, because as I mentioned, I have a dashcam. I absolutely came to a stop at that intersection (see explanation below), and if I had been given a timely notification - as what happens when a real person pulls you over on the spot - I would be able to properly mount a defense for myself. I believe the method of service in this matter has taken that away from me, especially since because it was 3pm in the afternoon I wouldn't even see a 'flash.'

And while we're at it, while this is an absolute liability as highwaystar mentioned, the application of laws in general is always done with both the spirit as well as the letter so that we don't over-litigate. eg, there is clearly no traffic, I did stop and could've proved it, and no one was hurt or otherwise suffered as a result. I would think the bigger goal of this system is to target people who are clearly demonstrating dangerous behaviour, so I do believe there is significant reason and justification in my concerns here.

As well, thanks for providing some info for the red light camera system, this is going to be something I will need, because I am also interested in the metrics of how and what the cameras use to measure your speed. I had stopped somewhat short of the white line there for my own purposes - namely to let somebody off. Therefore, I'm interested in exactly how close to the white line the sensors would be active, because as far as legislation, the OHTA:

136(1)(a) shall stop his or her vehicle or street car at a marked stop line or, if none, then immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk or, if none, then immediately before entering the intersection; and

Also, from earlier in the section ShrekTek mentions:

144(5)(a,b,c)

Where to stop – intersection

(5) A driver who is directed by a traffic control signal erected at an intersection to stop his or her vehicle shall stop,

(a) at the sign or roadway marking indicating where the stop is to be made;

(b) if there is no sign or marking, immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk; or

(c) if there is no sign, marking or crosswalk, immediately before entering the intersection. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (5); 2006, c. 19, Sched. T, s. 6 (1).

I would like to point out use of the words "at a marked stop line" or otherwise "immediately before the crosswalk or intersection. Despite the certainty of an "absolute" liability, this leaves interpretation of this, in my opinion, as a big grey area. What exactly is "immediately?" 3mm? 30cm? 3m? Before ruling out the latter, or larger distances, consider that I regularly see many cars stopped for red lights at that distance or greater, and this particular intersection is right near a bus stop which is some ways back. That bus regularly, after picking up its riders, will then proceed straight forward and make a right without stopping a second time – so how many TTC vehicles have been slapped with this charge? Currently Im spending time putting together videographic evidence of this on the same dashcam that I now never empty unless Ive stored the files somewhere. Thanks Ontario.

Does anyone know of any jurisprudence establishing the minimum/maximum stopping distances from indicated lines for red lights (or stop signs)?

Thank you everyone for your explanations of the content of the letter. I now understand the "30km/h" speed indicated on it to be the speed of my vehicle when the first picture was taken. I have noticed a few people mention that it could have been the speed of the other vehicle moving through the intersection – is there any jurisprudence or existing information on that occurring?

Finally, highwaystar, I think youve misunderstood because I am not wayners wife and that picture does not show her vehicle. I also already mentioned I asked for an early resolution meeting but was given a court date instead (clearly) – from memory I remember not having to do this after a court date, has that changed (eg, do I request it now)?

Given the other statements Ive made here, Im not particularly interested in folding and just paying the ticket, because I dont think its appropriate. At this point, Im a fan of sticking up for myself. If it comes down to it, from what Ive read, I expect to get a reduced fine, so I look at that as my 'worst case.

Without getting into the "ideological" aspects of this because they are completely useless in this endeavour, the RLCS was instituted based on an estimate of subsidization due to the revenue stream it would generate – a revenue stream that does not decrease as time goes on, as one would expect if this system was actually intended to curb the behaviour rather than just tax it. In other words, they do not expect fewer people to cut red lights from deterrence or hard knocks. Therefore, calling it a "safety device" as they do is absolutely appalling since it does nothing to, by very definition, increase safety.

I will continue to check this and keep everyone updated.

Cheers,

AnyyVen

Traffic control signals and pedestrian control signals

144 (1) In this section,

Exception – turn

(19) Despite subsection (18) and subject to subsection (14), a driver, after stopping his or her vehicle and yielding the right of way to traffic lawfully approaching so closely that to proceed would constitute an immediate hazard, may,

(a) turn to the right; or

(b) turn to the left from a one-way street into a one-way street,

without a green indication being shown. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (19).

Hi argyll,

Thank you kindly for providing that (and so quickly as well!).

I notice in your signature it notes you're a former officer, would you be able to comment on my question re: stopping distance from red lights, whether in regards to hard [jurisprudence], or even rules of thumb? (I imagine for most patrol officers it would be subject to common sense, conditions, and other things the driver might be doing rather than a hard and fast rule?)

With red lights there will be a stop line. That's where you need to stop. I'm not quite sure I'm following what you're asking.

Sure.

What I'm asking is, in regards to that line, are there any guides as to how close or far from it? The OHTA says "immediately." During the course of an average day, I see people stopped within an inch, a foot back, or an entire car length or more away from it. Are you aware of any rule or litigation regarding this?

Eg, if I stopped 30cm back from the line completely vs I stopped 3m back from it.

Here it is:

Where to stop – intersection

(5) A driver who is directed by a traffic control signal erected at an intersection to stop his or her vehicle shall stop,

(a) at the sign or roadway marking indicating where the stop is to be made;

(b) if there is no sign or marking, immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk; or

(c) if there is no sign, marking or crosswalk, immediately before entering the intersection

If theres a roadway marking, you must stop "at" the roadway marking. Not over it, not a car length back, not a metre back.

In the end, it would be up to the courts to interpret any evidence given at a trial.

Hey Decatur,

That's what I figure and my contention - "at" and "immediately" will be interpreted based on conditions at the time.

Quick question to anyone who can respond - I don't have a phone number and I don't believe one is necessary for a disclosure request. Is this correct?

eg: do I need to provide a phone number in my POA disclosure request or is a mailing address sufficient in and of itself?

As well, can I request that they mail it to me or do I have to go and pick it up? This seems like a needless action they've instituted to make it more difficult to obtain my disclosure, especially considering they require a disclosure request in writing.

AnyyVen wrote:

Hey Decatur,

That's what I figure and my contention - "at" and "immediately" will be interpreted based on conditions at the time.

Quick question to anyone who can respond - I don't have a phone number and I don't believe one is necessary for a disclosure request. Is this correct?

eg: do I need to provide a phone number in my POA disclosure request or is a mailing address sufficient in and of itself?

As well, can I request that they mail it to me or do I have to go and pick it up? This seems like a needless action they've instituted to make it more difficult to obtain my disclosure, especially considering they require a disclosure request in writing.

If you don't have a phone number, you don't have a phone number. You could simply write "N/A" on the form. Some courts now provide disclosure by e-mail. If your court isn't one of them, you'll have to follow the court's procedure.

About disclosure. Its your disclosure. Once you request it, its your responsibility to get it and to check to see if its ready. Theres no requirement for them to bend over backwards to make sure you get it.

Hey Decatur and Zazota,

Thank you for your replies.

-

As well, let me preface by just stating by no means am I trying to 'game the system' or put up barriers, I'm merely interested in what would constitute due diligence and reasonable expectations on the part of the crown; eg, if I have to go pick up my disclosure myself, so be it, but I still have some questions if you are capable of answering.

I have noticed that some jurisdictions will mail disclosure, some will email it, others (such as Toronto) state you must pick it up; others allow request via email or phone, some (Toronto) require written notice.

The crown requires a physical written document, ostensibly the traditional medium being mail. As well, both the charge and notice of trial were delivered by mail; as well, if I do not have a phone number, that also means they will have to likely submit a letter to me notifying me that my disclosure is ready or available.

1) Is it not reasonable to have an expectation they would submit my disclosure to me via mail then?

2) What grants a jurisdiction power to determine what method of request and delivery are valid? (I would think this is important in case, for instance in my case, they are "unable to reach me" to notify me it is ready, whereas other jurisdictions utilize methods that invalidate this argument.)

3) What if you requested disclosure but were not a resident of Toronto, being in another city or province?

Regarding 2) especially, I recall one trial where the crown tried to argue that the defendant had not provided a phone number and therefore could not contact him to get his disclosure; the JP (maybe judge, I am not sure) responded that the defendant had provided a mailing address, and the crown had not fulfilled due diligence by attempting to contact him via this method (I believe the specific wording was actually "to request a phone number"). If anyone is familiar with this case and could provide any more information I'd be interested in that too.

Any insight anyone can provide would be appreciated, just trying to navigate all this.

You're making life overly complex for yourself. Your tactics are just going to work against you.

First off, as has already been said, disclosure is YOURS to be had. YOU are the one who has to follow up and make all diligent efforts to acquire it. In other words, they aren't going to mail it to you, nor are they even going to write to you to indicate its ready. YOU have to call in or email them to follow up. There's really no excuse today why an indigent person can't simply go to the public library, sign up for a free email address and do this. If you have a cellphone, you'll be hard pressed to justify why that wasn't use. You clearly have access to internet since you're posting on this site!!!! So, any argument as to why you couldn't take reasonable steps to follow up will simply be met with you attending court, getting an adjournment (while you get the disclosure in person) and have to come back. In other words, you're just wasting your time. Plus, the disclosure should have already all been sent to you----the photos and the cover page indicating your speed, time, location of offence, etc. Red light camera offences are not likely to yield a stay of proceedings for non-disclosure. It simply does not happen in practice since it is sent right away.

Secondly, remember that there's no prejudice to the Crown whatsoever. There are no witnesses to be called and the evidence is already preserved, so any delay really is only wasting YOUR time; no one elses.

Thirdly, you'll have virtually no chance of arguing that going 30km per hour, you would have been able to stop before the line. If your argument is that you stopped way BEFORE the line and were already doing 30km at the point of the photo while making your right turn, then that argument will also be shot down as well. That would be mean you stopped at an unreasonable location whereby you stopped before the intersection but at a spot where you could not reasonably see the entire intersection, nor be seen by others. Its just pure physics dealing with speed, acceleration and distance! Such a stop would not be consistent with the 'pith and substance' of the HTA legislation. After all, the purpose of stopping at the line is to 1) have vehicles STOP first before the intersection; and 2) be able to see clearly AND be seen clearly by others at the intersection PRIOR to any further movements.

Bottom line: definitely try your luck with your arguments, but I can tell you that they have been tried numerous times and have ALWAYS been shot down quickly; so quick that you can almost see smoke come from them!!!

highwaystar wrote:

You're making life overly complex for yourself. Your tactics are just going to work against you.

First off, as has already been said, disclosure is YOURS to be had. YOU are the one who has to follow up and make all diligent efforts to acquire it. In other words, they aren't going to mail it to you, nor are they even going to write to you to indicate its ready. YOU have to call in or email them to follow up. There's really no excuse today why an indigent person can't simply go to the public library, sign up for a free email address and do this. If you have a cellphone, you'll be hard pressed to justify why that wasn't use. You clearly have access to internet since you're posting on this site!!!! So, any argument as to why you couldn't take reasonable steps to follow up will simply be met with you attending court, getting an adjournment (while you get the disclosure in person) and have to come back. In other words, you're just wasting your time. Plus, the disclosure should have already all been sent to you----the photos and the cover page indicating your speed, time, location of offence, etc. Red light camera offences are not likely to yield a stay of proceedings for non-disclosure. It simply does not happen in practice since it is sent right away.

Secondly, remember that there's no prejudice to the Crown whatsoever. There are no witnesses to be called and the evidence is already preserved, so any delay really is only wasting YOUR time; no one elses.

Thirdly, you'll have virtually no chance of arguing that going 30km per hour, you would have been able to stop before the line. If your argument is that you stopped way BEFORE the line and were already doing 30km at the point of the photo while making your right turn, then that argument will also be shot down as well. That would be mean you stopped at an unreasonable location whereby you stopped before the intersection but at a spot where you could not reasonably see the entire intersection, nor be seen by others. Its just pure physics dealing with speed, acceleration and distance! Such a stop would not be consistent with the 'pith and substance' of the HTA legislation. After all, the purpose of stopping at the line is to 1) have vehicles STOP first before the intersection; and 2) be able to see clearly AND be seen clearly by others at the intersection PRIOR to any further movements.

Bottom line: definitely try your luck with your arguments, but I can tell you that they have been tried numerous times and have ALWAYS been shot down quickly; so quick that you can almost see smoke come from them!!!

Hey highwaystar,

Thanks for your response and also taking the time to write a detailed reply.

As you said, "YOU have to call in or email them to follow up." Perfect - that's exactly what I'll do. I'm not trying to be difficult, but no, I do not make use of a personal phone nor any sort of phone number that can be reliably used. As well, their website does not state it will email you disclosure nor notify you via email it will be ready. Therefore, their procedure puts me in a bind. But if I have provided a means by which to contact me and they make no move to do so, I believe that does indeed constitute a failure of due diligence, and as I mentioned I think there is jurisprudence to that accord.

If you have spent time at a POA office you'll know that it's anything but inefficient. They typically don't even accept new arrivals within two hours of closing; therefore, I think making me come to pick it up whereas most other jurisdictions (Durham, Waterloo, others) will deliver it to you remotely is not "bending over backwards," as has been said before - I think it's duly reasonable, especially considering they expect the same from me for the request. Personally, it does feel like a stonewall tactic, but that's not relevant now is it. I fail to see how expecting them to send a letter is unreasonable considering they've already sent two.

Regardless of the contents of my disclosure, it is still my right to request one, and their obligation to fulfill it: I do not however intend to cause myself excessive difficulty in obtaining it. I will fulfill my due diligence in obtaining it, as I always do, but I will not absolve the crown of all responsibility of that fulfillment.

If the OHTA wants to consider some stop to be "unreasonable" then it should specify some kind of criteria beyond "immediately" before the intersection, and I don't think that's ridiculous to ask. When laws are left fuzzy or open ended they are prone to interpretation of the same nature. Additionally, how does this jive with the sensor range of the camera? What if I had stopped an inch further forward and it wouldn't have tripped?

Finally, that's not really my argument. Rather, my argument is that I know that I stopped, but any evidence I could have had is unavailable now due to an unnecessary delay between the commission of the act and my first notification. If a police officer had stopped me, I would have had due cause to note the time, conditions, and preserve my videographic evidence, whether it proved me innocent or guilty. My argument is that I am now rendered unable to do that, and I believe that that is a violation of my rights. If I had been in the middle of the intersection, yes, that would be far harder to defend because I would have no cause to be there, but right turns by their very nature are much more of a grey area as they strongly rely on subjective judgment. Therefore, it was the province's choice to apply this system to this situation and furthermore their responsibility to notify me which they did with unacceptable tardiness. Given that the intersection is clear of traffic and pedestrians, the moral implications of this are therefore questionable and the charge is purely punitive.

Again irrelevant to the actual facts but a personal opinion, it's all letter and no spirit, and mechanical application of the law has fundamentally been argued against. Then again, I have a serious problem with relying on financial motivation to goad dangerous drivers into behaving; if they actually wanted to address the behaviour, they should photograph the face of the driver so that we can seek measures to revoke their driving privileges, because I guarantee you'll find most are repeat offenders. Dangerous driving is not a one-off.

Thus, in this specific case, yes, I believe I have a valid case, if for no other reason than to have the province address these issues. I do not believe for one second the red light camera system is infallible, both in light of photoradar of the days past and as a design of sensor systems myself, so the knee-jerk response of "you're guilt just pay up" is even more summary than the province's system and I don't completely understand it.

In the end, I don't believe that I am wasting my time, because I'm doing one of the most fundamentally important things any Canadian can and should, and that's attempting to make full use of all rights and means to them to obtain what they believe is the satisfaction of justice.

I don't believe I deserve this ticket, I think the system is flawed, and I think that's why I got this ticket, and I want the province to address that, successful or not. They impugned my ability to defend myself, and therefore the question of guilt is poisoned - this is exactly why I have a dashcam. I think this is reasonably, or at least necessarily rectifiable. And so I think the matter of guilt is the cart we're putting before the horse here.

Thus, in my questions, I am trying to make sure I am fulfilling all my responsibilities in my efforts. I am trying to make sure I am not doing anything dubious, unethical, illegal or otherwise. Whether or not it makes life easier or harder for the crown is not my concern.

You're not doing anything illegal nor immoral by defending yourself. Its your absolute right to do so---even if you did the offence. So, kudos to you for being principled that way. Most folks don't have the time nor energy to waste on such things because they know that the odds of them winning a case like yours are about 1-2%, plus the consequences are not longer term (its just money)!

Your arguments are really more aimed against the system not the actual evidence of your case! Those arguments are more political in nature; not for the courts to decide. The courts just simply apply the current law to your case and convict you. If you don't like the way things are done, you can write your MPP or better yet, run for office yourself. The court is not going to entertain such arguments (i.e. they like to preserve judicial independence).

As long as you go in with your eyes wide open, you won't be left with wishful thinking. From a legal perspective, your arguments are very weak. They've been tried and tested several times in the past. Take it from someone who has done hundreds of POA trials, including dozens of RLC charges. Your dissatisfaction with how disclosure is delivered to you or the unfairness of red light camera system evidence is not going to carry any weight on the merits of your case.

But, by all means, carry on with your intention of defending yourself. You'll not only learn more about the court system and its players, but feel good that you didn't just give the government your hard earned money. But, truly stick to your guns----they will undoubtedly offer you a reduction in fine between $150-$180---so, you should turn it down and truly stick to your principles, otherwise, you'd let them win!

Thanks highwaystar.

I get what you're saying and I appreciate the heads up. That's how I'm trying to look at it too - that I have nothing to lose here.

After all, don't forget that just a few years ago these charges were failing regularly because of fatal defects on the notice itself.

Without trying to get too far off topic I do have a question regarding this whole disclosure thing. After all, if the crown tries to give you your disclosure at the trial -

which they often try - the minimum remedy which is easily arguable is an adjournment. In one trial the crown literally waited until the end of the session - 3 hours later - to dismiss my charges (likely in spite). So I take that rights around disclosure are pretty tightly guarded.

So for instance, Toronto has a form for you to fill out and says they will call you when it is ready for you to pick it up. Their representative told me on the phone that they do not send mail anymore and the answer on email was ambiguous if not dubious. I don't have a phone because it's expensive and for me, needless, and as far as I know, are not even an "essential service." To my knowledge, there is no law or otherwise requiring me to use their form or have a phone; therefore, I can send a valid disclosure request that doesn't even consider having a phone number.

I've been long out of the loop from the time when I could fax in a request and have my package mailed to me, so I don't even know what the rules are anymore (re: bringing your ticket to the appropriate court office). Hypothetically - and I realize that this isn't exactly a landmark trial or capital charge, but the law is the law - given that they have no legal backing for enforcing these policies (I assume?), then, wouldn't/couldn't that eventually be challenged and fall apart at some point in the process (including appeals)?

Op, I hate to break it to you but you already HAVE disclosure----its all on the ticket you received. The pictures were enclosed, as was the information regarding speed, intersection and time after the light was red that the car passed through. You seem to be confusing RLC charges with other HTA offences; but its not the same. There is no other additional disclosure given on those charges.

Furthermore, I just noticed that the light was already red for 12.7 seconds when the car went through on the red. Given that time delay, the best fine reduction you might get is about $200. The prosecutor won't go any lower than that (i.e. you won't qualify for the reduction within the $150-$180 range as I previously stated).

"I just wanted to reply and let everyone know that my court date is coming up in December, basically right at the edge of the 10-month mark that would otherwise see a section 11b".

Why are you quoting 10 months? I thought that i had changed?

Hello AnyyVev,

If I may be presumptuous, I believe I know why you got this red light camera ticket.

It is because, as noted, it is not a 90 degree intersection.

I say this because I received exactly the same offence at an intersection that was also not 90 degrees. Mine was 41 degrees from the vertical.

Now, if you are telling the truth that you came to a complete stop, then I believe I am right. Let me explain. The camera, I believe, is fooled into thinking you are going straight when in fact you are making a right turn.

In my case, and I honestly cannot say whether or not I came to a complete stop, I made an extremely wide right turn due to the fact that it was 41 and not 90 and also because it was in the extreme left side of the right hand turn lane, hence the wide ride turn. My red was red for 0.3 seconds, my delay was 1.1 seconds and it says I was travelling 44km/hr in both pictures. According to this then, I travelled 14 metres or 47 feet. In that time I have only travelled one car length.

Now, my argument hinges on the kind of information the camera sees and what it does with this information. The software, I believe, digitizes your car so it becomes a moving dot. Camera software is stupid it does not know what a car is and it cannot "see" the way we do. Now, if the camera sees a moving dot, then it all boils down to vector algebra, if in fact that is what the camera is doing. The software is following this moving dot in time, therefore speed and direction. When it is following direction then it might be breaking direction down into its vector components, i.e, it simplifies the information (vertical and horizontal components).

Now, a dot making an extreme right hand turn, i.e., a 90 degrees has a much smaller vertical component in time than a car not making a 90 degree turn. So the camera may interpret the greater vertical component, in time, in a wide turn as going straight through.

This is all conjecture on my part.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of failed to stop at a right turn fall on crooked intersections like yours and mine.

1. My main objection to my ticket is the wording, like yours it says "proceeded through the intersection" (I looked at your ticket and the wording is the same as mine). Now, I did not "proceed through the intersection". How would it be worded differently if in fact I crossed the intersection and actually did go through the red light. It would be the same wording. Now wording has to be SPECIFIC, this is the law. You can't have making a right on a red light and crossing a red light have the same offence definition.

This is from a Toronto Star article where Roger Brown makes the distinction between going "through the intersection" and just making a right:

"Red light-running is more than just running straight through the intersection…its any time you dont stop at a red light."

The citys cameras are also equipped to pick up drivers who dont come to a full stop before making a right-hand turn, said Roger Brown, manager of the traffic safety unit for the City of Toronto.

"I think its a good thing to make people aware of it," he said. "Red light-running is more than just running straight through the intersection…its any time you dont stop at a red light."

I would also like to know what the wording is on the ticket for people who do not stop while making a 90 degree turn.

2. Also, I would like to know what the word "proceeded" means in "....and that vehicle proceeded through the intersection when the light had been red for 1.4 seconds". Does it mean my car started moving again after 1.4 seconds, did it cross the line after 1.4 seconds? Either way does it not say I was stopped for 1.1 (1.4- 0.3)seconds? And does going through a red light really merit the same $325 fine as turning right at a red light - but that is beside the point. And there is no way I was travelling 44 km/hr in the second picture - I just did not cover 47 feet.

You say you are a student. Perhaps you can go to a computer engineering professor and ask how they think the camera digitizes the information and mention the crooked angle and my vector algebra hypotheses.

If you believe, that because our cases are very similar, that I have a reasonable argument, then you are welcome to discuss this with me further. Too bad, it is coming close to December. My court case is in June 2018.

Good luck

arv wrote:

My red was red for 0.3 seconds, my delay was 1.1 seconds and it says I was travelling 44km/hr in both pictures. According to this then, I travelled 14 metres or 47 feet. In that time I have only travelled one car length.

I don't believe the speed reading changes throughout the pictures. It should be the same initial reading on all of them.

arv wrote:

Now, my argument hinges on the kind of information the camera sees and what it does with this information. The software, I believe, digitizes your car so it becomes a moving dot. Camera software is stupid it does not know what a car is and it cannot "see" the way we do. Now, if the camera sees a moving dot, then it all boils down to vector algebra, if in fact that is what the camera is doing. The software is following this moving dot in time, therefore speed and direction. When it is following direction then it might be breaking direction down into its vector components, i.e, it simplifies the information (vertical and horizontal components).

The cameras are activated by, I believe, a magnet in the ground. The camera is not drawing anything. They don't really do anything other than take a series of photos.