It was a red light, i approached the intersection and stopped, noticed two pedestrians on the right of me, and one officer on left and right of my vehicle, on the cross walks. They were pay duty for construction happening. I was waiting for the light and decided it would be safe for me to continue through the light to make the right turn, but when i entered the intersection i realized that i wasn't able to see south bound traffic due to a cement truck blocking my view, so from where i was i waited for the green light.
When the light turned green one of the two pedestrians entered the intersection, walked across the road, and reached the other side of the roadway. during that time, the other pedestrian had not yet moved from his initial spot. i inched forwarded at most about a foot, and the officer walked in front of my vehicle (still in the intersection) and asked me if i had seen the pedestrian. i said yes, that he still hasn't moved. the officer said, "ok i'm going to speak with you. let the pedestrian cross now, then pull over to the side of the road." at this time he called out to the second pedestrian and asked him to walk a cross the road now.
My issue is this, in the officers notes he says i made the turn going 5-10 km/hour cutting off the pedestrian making him jump back from the curb. which didn't happen, he also makes very clear mistakes on how much of the roadway was blocked by construction. because there was enough room for my car to pull in, but in his notes he says it was only the bike lane. This is important because i had to make a wide turn to get past the pylons.
I've been looking to see if there were any distinctions between cross walks and cross overs. Because he charged me with 140 (1) A: failure to yield to a pedestrian at a cross over.
Duties of driver
140. (1) When a pedestrian is crossing on the roadway within a pedestrian crossover, the driver of a vehicle approaching the crossover,
(a) shall stop before entering the crossover;
(b) shall not overtake another vehicle already stopped at the crossover; and
(c) shall not proceed into the crossover until the pedestrian is no longer on the roadway. 2015, c. 14, s. 39 (1).
(2) Repealed: 2015, c. 14, s. 39 (1).
Can anyone shed light on this situation? i have no witnesses or any other evidence other than google maps pictures of the scene that shows the street and nothing more.
Also noticed that under,
(7) When under this section a driver is permitted to proceed, the driver shall yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully within a crosswalk. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144
Makes a distinction between cross over and cross walk.
The officer has 6 months to issue the correct charge, so you do not want to let the prosecutor or officer know that they made a mistake ahead of time (meaning within the first 6 months after the charge).
Talking the to prosecutor before the trial and explaining that the charge is for a cross-over but it was a cross-walk may get him to drop it.
If not, at trial, the officer will get up and give his testimony. You will then have the opportunity to cross-examine the officer. At this point you want to ask questions about whether it was a cross-over or a cross-walk and try to get officer to admit it was "cross walk". You then say "motion of non-suit" and the JP will ask you why and you say they did not prove part of the charge about it being a "cross-over" as it was a "cross-walk" and therefore charge should be dropped.
You should print out the section of the HTA that you are charged under, and you should see if there are definitions in the HTA for cross-over and cross-walk and print those out as well. Taking picture of the intersection in question and bringing those with you may help as well.
Anyways, i went to court today and had the charges reduced to no demerit points, $0, but am still charged with failure to yield to a pedestrian.
the cross walk thing would have been great, but the crown had the charges changed to 144 (7) Failure to yield at a pedestrian crosswalk. the judge allowed it.
After that the officer went up and explained in detail what he "remembered" which involved him jumping infront of my vehicle to make me stop, and yet at the same time, the pedestrian almost getting hit by my car jumping back. He kept saying things contrary to his notes but still we couldn't get it to fly.
Anyways. thank you again for the help!