False tickets issued when legally turning right on red at bronson and carling.

The Carling and Bronson red light camera at this intersection is falsely issuing tickets to vehicles turning right on red based on the assumption that, while approaching the intersection, if you are traveling 25km/hr you will not stop at the light and there for run a red light. I did make a complete stop at the white line intersection, and then proceeded turning right. In the first picture that I was issued shows my vehicle before the white line with my brake lights on. The second picture my car is not in the picture, so they assume that I could not stop my vehicle in 8 feet prior to the intersection while traveling at 25 km/hr. All vehicles are capable of coming to a complete stop within 8 feet approximately traveling 25 km/hr (15 miles/hr). I always approach the intersection reducing speed and approximately 8 feet from the intersection traveling 25 km/hr (15 miles/hr) I am able to stop my car safely before the white line. I may be a lead foot but I do not break the law.

The system measures the speed of your vehicle approaching the white line approximately 8 feet before the white line, and the system only activates if the light is red, that is why it records the speed way before the white line, presuming that you will cross the red light. So on the second picture my vehicle is no longer visible. The two pictures clearly do not show my vehicle breaking the law. Based only on the speed of my vehicle approaching the white line is why I was issued a ticket. I was denied any opportunity to explain my defense as I have done here, and I will see about appealing this ruling.

The Judge literally stopped me from explaining why this ticket was false. As I began to explain he interrupted me, and said any other evidence, before i could even finish three words. I said you have to give me the right to a defense and let me explain why.....and again cut me off and told me to stand and read that i was guilty and how much time do need to pay. So i pleaded again my right to a defense and literally evicted me from the court room.

I do not believe i will win this case for the simple reason that they, the courts do not know how the system works and will not admit to this fact. They will read the statement saying the system was working in perfect condition upon issuing this ticket end of statement, even without any proof in the pictures of a traffic violation The only other recourse i have is to test the system with witnesses present and video tape the test showing a vehicle approaching the red light over 25km/hr and make a full stop at the red light and turn right quickly after. The first picture will show the speed and the vehicle at the white line ( like in my case) then the second picture will not show any vehicle. But only based on the speed of the first picture they will assume you ran the red light. They assume that you had no intention to stop approaching the intersection at 25km/hr. But with the witnesses and video tape will clearly show that no traffic laws were broken. I will of course be issued a ticket and hope the court will allow my evidence.

One way of fixing this problem would be to install no right turn signs at intersection with red light cameras. This would eliminate unfair issuing of tickets for legally turning right on red.

labmichael wrote:

All vehicles are capable of coming to a complete stop within 8 feet approximately traveling 25 km/hr (15 miles/hr). I always approach the intersection reducing speed and approximately 8 feet from the intersection traveling 25 km/hr (15 miles/hr).

conversion calculator to proper units of measure

http://www.worldwidemetric.com/measurements.html

Stopping distance calculator

http://www.forensicdynamics.com/stopdistcalc

- dry surface = 3.51m to stop at 25km/hr

http://www.rotr.ie/rules-for-driving/sp ... -cars.html

Just saying a lot of factors to consider before saying all vehicles can stop in 2.4m

I thank you for the respond.

I believe all people should take responsibility when driving any vehicle and pay any fines if breaking the law. The key words if breaking the law. I notice you did not comment on why I posted hear in the first place. The in justice of tickets being issued to people who have not broken any traffic laws. As for the speed to stop standard that you have posted is what they recommend. But real situation driving like bumper to bumper traffic 4 feet distance between vehicles is usually traveling at approx. 25 km/hr-15mile/hr can stop within 3 feet. If this was not true we would have 1000's of bumper accidents a day especially in Montreal.

Based only on assumptions not facts the bronson and carling redlight camera is ticketing legal right turns on red based on speed of vehicle approaching the intersection. Even when the pictures do not show any traffic violations.

Put a no right turn on red sign at red light cameras and this will stop the money grab of innocent drivers once and for all. I will never turn right on red at any red light camera intersection again. Just a note that I have been driving since 1983 without one accident.

Here is a video link showing the stopping distance of a vehicle going 30miles/hr, 50mile/hr and 70mile/hr in this (GEM Motoring Assist guide to motorway stopping distances). Notice at 3:20 in the video showing 30Mile/hr = 50km/hr how fast the vehicle does stop. please do not delete this as you deleted my response from the other thread. Just proving my case that the recommend stop distance is not factual but should still be used if you are not an every day defensive driver and hesitate for every action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzHklqaiTXI

labmichael wrote:

. please do not delete this as you deleted my response from the other thread.

Your other thread was deleted because it violated forum rules.

For the sake of users please use metric as it has been the unit of measure for traffic since 1977.

I did not comment directly for a couple reasons - I have never seen a red light camera, I don't know the standard (actual specs)on how they are installed or operate, I don't know the intersection. I even tried to google map the intersection, but it is not clear enough. So guessing or making suggestion specifically for that intersection would not be appropriate.

thanks again for responding...

I respect that you would like to know all the facts and for that i wish you would have been the judge when i went to court.

They the prosecutors do not have to prove their case with these camera tickets but the defendants must do so. You are right without the specs of the cameras, you have no defense, they always win. When i wanted to introduce the specs i was not allowed to to so. I do admit that i am very angry that i was not given a chance to prove my case and know all to well how the courts work. In my case I was in a court room with about 12 people and after 20mins and only 3 people were heard another prosecutor came in and took 4 people to the other room 10mins later came in and took 3 more. I was one of the 3. It was clear that judge was trying clear the cases not listen to facts. That is why I am angry.

I only wish to give good advise to others who have and will turn on a red light legally. Do not turn right on a red light that has a red light camera, you risk getting a 325.00 fine with out any proof by the courts.

If you are a person who drives through red lights illegally and put others at risk then you should pay what ever the fine is issued.

I tried to copy the "event" today.

I was going 40 kph and slowed to 25kph.

My foot was over the brake to slow down.

(no reaction time involved.)

It took me less then 1 small car length to stop.(just over 2 meters.)

I would think anyone nearing a red light would have their foot on the brake already.

It would be an "abrupt" stop but it is easy to do.

Cheers

Viper1

The only recourse you have is to appeal the conviction, if you feel that the JP did not allow you to introduce any evidence. You would need to order the transcripts for your original trial, and then prepare a factum, etc., when it goes before a Justice. You could then argue that the JP did not follow proper procedure in failing to allow you to introduce evidence to show your innocence to the charge. What would then likely occur is the Justice would quash the conviction and either order a new trial, or hear the case directly.

As for the actual operation of the camera, you would need the camera operator's manual to show that it is possible that the camera was wrongfully issuing tickets. I do know that the camera uses magneometers embedded in the roadway that sense when a vehicle passes over them. You'd need to show where the magnetometers are set on the roadway, and where you actually stopped your vehicle. You'd then need to show (and I don't mean theoretical calculations, you'd need actual proof with real tests) that your vehicle could've accelerated within the distance from the point you stopped to/over the magnetometers and tripped the camera. However, I think that the cameras are set so that it records your actual speed going across the stop line, and the camera computer is intelligent enough to know acceleration/deceleration, so that if you stopped on/near the stop line, it would not set the camera off.