any defense against red light ticket? | GTAMotorcycle.com

any defense against red light ticket?

M

maxgohan

Well-known member
got a ticket of my cage mailed to me

I wasn't driving but the ticket is still issued to me as I'm the registered owner of the car

do I have any defense?
 
not really...just be glad it doesn't go on your ​driving record.
 
There are options available to fight it, but why would you bother anyway? The cost of preceedings will cost you MORE than the ticket itself.
And like LoneRonin said, a red light camera charge is not accompanied with demerit points, so no affect to your driving record. Just pay it off and pass the cost onto whoever was behind the wheel.
 
You can fight it by having the person who was driving own it, which means that person would then be charged.

Or you can have that person pay your ticket, as he or she should, and avoid wasting all that time dealing with the legal system. Since there are no other penalties involved, I would recommend option 2.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
You can fight it by having the person who was driving own it, which means that person would then be charged.

Or you can have that person pay your ticket, as he or she should, and avoid wasting all that time dealing with the legal system. Since there are no other penalties involved, I would recommend option 2.
Click to expand...

Also if you do set a court date, the Crown regularly lowers the fine so people just pay up. There'll be a line of people with red light camera tickets, everyone there will get a reduced fine, I've heard of as low as $120. $200 seems to be average
 
so if I pay this ticket, my insurance premiums won't increase?

that's all I'm really concerned about
 
No effect on insurance, because there is no way for them to tell who was driving.
 
IF you go to court to lower the fine though, doesn't that require an admission of guilt? Therefore notifying (potentially) your insurance company?

Just pay it and go after whoever you lent your car to.
 
bboySushi said:
IF you go to court to lower the fine though, doesn't that require an admission of guilt? Therefore notifying (potentially) your insurance company?

Just pay it and go after whoever you lent your car to.
Click to expand...

I believe that the Camera tickets don't appear on a driver's abstract since there is no proof who was driving
 
You didn't mention but reading other replies and the fact that it was mailed to you I am guessing this is a red light with camera ticket.

Don't fight it. Just go and tell that you are guilty. They will reduce the fine to $160. This will not go on your record.

Been there done that. Paid $160 instead of the actual $365.
 
If you really want to fight your ticket, there are ways to attack the ticket's validity.

Suppose that the light was yellow for just one second. Of course, that is fiction, but if the light was yellow for too short a period, going through the subsequent red light would be unavoidable.

If you can cast doubt on the proper operation of the traffic light, specifically concerning the duration of the yellow light, you may establish doubt of your guilt, and thus get the charge thrown out.

What would Perry Mason do? He would question the cop exhaustively about what the cop had personally done to measure the duration of the yellow light. You can write the script yourself, and if you have the poise to emulate Perry Mason grilling the cop, you may rattle the cop enough to get this fatal admission:

"I don't know."

If you can get those words to flow from the cop's mouth, you can probably show that the cop is casting doubt on his or her own testimony.

This is not an easy process, but I have come close on a few occasions, and escaped a conviction when I may have deserved one.

Remember that the gloves are off in traffic court. Cops lie under oath to get convictions, and magistrates/justices of the peace/judges will believe the cop's lies unless they are thoroughly exposed.

Good luck. You will need it!
 
I think that the fine for going through an amber is the same as going through a red.
 
Schneller said:
I think that the fine for going through an amber is the same as going through a red.
Click to expand...

So what? The OP was charged with going through a RED light, not an amber light.

My point is simply this: if the OP can cast doubt on the proper operation of the traffic light, he may get the charge thrown out. The manner of doing this is far from easy, and may involve questionable ethics, but remember that cops lie in court often, and magistrates issue convictions on testimony they know to be false.

Short illustration, concerning a right turn on red, with no stop, at night,
from Eglinton Avenue East onto Yonge, long long ago:

Officer, could you read the license plate of the vehicle that made the turn?
No.
How do you know you stopped the right car?
I kept my eyes on the vehicle that broke the law, followed it, stopped it, and you were the driver.

Sounds airtight, doesn't it? Well, pay attention.

Officer, from where did you make your observations?
I was parked on a paved area on the Southwest corner of the intersection.

Now, here is where the accused did not connect the dots, and he asked no more questions.
Hence the magistrate issued a conviction for making a right turn on red without first stopping.

Here is the question that the accused should have asked:

Officer, how did you manage to cross four lanes of Eglinton Avenue traffic,
and two lanes of southbound Yonge Street traffic, then merge into northbound traffic,
all the while keeping your eyes glued on a vehicle going north on Yonge Street?

Now this is off the topic of the OP's red light camera ticket, but it goes to show that cops lie, and magistrates issue convictions based on the lies told by cops.

So, if you can manage it, and there are ways, you do not need to be any more truthful than the cops are.

(I do not need any lectures about perjury. I know what that is.)
 
I would just pay it, as long as it doesn't affect your DL.

going to court will take a lot of effort and time, imagine if you have to take a day off from work to go to court? not sure if its worth it.
 
Except in the OP's case it was a red light camera that got him so not sure what your point is he going to confuse the camera or try to show the JP that the camera was lying and couldn't have possibly taken the picture from that distance/angle..LOL Or are you suggesting he spend weeks video taping the corresponding light AND the red light camera in hopes of seeing the light malfunction and turn red a SPLIT millisecond later than when the camera snaps the photo??/ don't forget you must have "made your turn safely and should "legally" be out of the intersection" BEFORE the light turns red not beginning or completing your turn.

Salos Dafee said:
So what? The OP was charged with going through a RED light, not an amber light.

My point is simply this: if the OP can cast doubt on the proper operation of the traffic light, he may get the charge thrown out. The manner of doing this is far from easy, and may involve questionable ethics, but remember that cops lie in court often, and magistrates issue convictions on testimony they know to be false.

Short illustration, concerning a right turn on red, with no stop, at night,
from Eglinton Avenue East onto Yonge, long long ago:

Officer, could you read the license plate of the vehicle that made the turn?
No.
How do you know you stopped the right car?
I kept my eyes on the vehicle that broke the law, followed it, stopped it, and you were the driver.

Sounds airtight, doesn't it? Well, pay attention.

Officer, from where did you make your observations?
I was parked on a paved area on the Southwest corner of the intersection.

Now, here is where the accused did not connect the dots, and he asked no more questions.
Hence the magistrate issued a conviction for making a right turn on red without first stopping.

Here is the question that the accused should have asked:

Officer, how did you manage to cross four lanes of Eglinton Avenue traffic,
and two lanes of southbound Yonge Street traffic, then merge into northbound traffic,
all the while keeping your eyes glued on a vehicle going north on Yonge Street?

Now this is off the topic of the OP's red light camera ticket, but it goes to show that cops lie, and magistrates issue convictions based on the lies told by cops.

So, if you can manage it, and there are ways, you do not need to be any more truthful than the cops are.

(I do not need any lectures about perjury. I know what that is.)
Click to expand...
 
Salos Dafee said:
If you really want to fight your ticket, there are ways to attack the ticket's validity.

Suppose that the light was yellow for just one second. Of course, that is fiction, but if the light was yellow for too short a period, going through the subsequent red light would be unavoidable.

If you can cast doubt on the proper operation of the traffic light, specifically concerning the duration of the yellow light, you may establish doubt of your guilt, and thus get the charge thrown out.

What would Perry Mason do? He would question the cop exhaustively about what the cop had personally done to measure the duration of the yellow light. You can write the script yourself, and if you have the poise to emulate Perry Mason grilling the cop, you may rattle the cop enough to get this fatal admission:

"I don't know."

If you can get those words to flow from the cop's mouth, you can probably show that the cop is casting doubt on his or her own testimony.

This is not an easy process, but I have come close on a few occasions, and escaped a conviction when I may have deserved one.

Remember that the gloves are off in traffic court. Cops lie under oath to get convictions, and magistrates/justices of the peace/judges will believe the cop's lies unless they are thoroughly exposed.

Good luck. You will need it!
Click to expand...

Perry Mason would simply prove that the other person was driving.
Do you even watch Perry Mason bro', or just heard the name in passing?
 
Salos Dafee said:
If you really want to fight your ticket, there are ways to attack the ticket's validity.

Suppose that the light was yellow for just one second. Of course, that is fiction, but if the light was yellow for too short a period, going through the subsequent red light would be unavoidable.

If you can cast doubt on the proper operation of the traffic light, specifically concerning the duration of the yellow light, you may establish doubt of your guilt, and thus get the charge thrown out.

What would Perry Mason do? He would question the cop exhaustively about what the cop had personally done to measure the duration of the yellow light. You can write the script yourself, and if you have the poise to emulate Perry Mason grilling the cop, you may rattle the cop enough to get this fatal admission:

"I don't know."

If you can get those words to flow from the cop's mouth, you can probably show that the cop is casting doubt on his or her own testimony.

This is not an easy process, but I have come close on a few occasions, and escaped a conviction when I may have deserved one.

Remember that the gloves are off in traffic court. Cops lie under oath to get convictions, and magistrates/justices of the peace/judges will believe the cop's lies unless they are thoroughly exposed.

Good luck. You will need it!
Click to expand...
This is wrong, the camera will only take a picture if you cross the line while the light is red. If your tires cross the line while is amber and it turns red while you are still crossing, you will not get a ticket.
 
Baggsy said:
Perry Mason would simply prove that the other person was driving.
Do you even watch Perry Mason bro', or just heard the name in passing?
Click to expand...

I am older than the guy who WROTE about Perry Mason.
When I was young, I played in empty wooden boxes in the park.
Can you imagine how happy I was when someone invented SAND???
 
ask for the picture taken, make sure the picture clear. i,ve heard them throwing it out if the picture leave room for doubt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom