|
|
|
Red Light Camera Ticket - Not in Photo
- Thread starter MTRCYCLS
- Start date
Fight it, zero question. Be polite and professional at all levels - even going in to file for the court date - the crown hates cocky people and it can (and often is) the difference between a positive outcome for you, and the crown sticking you with it anyways on a technicality.
Although it's hard to see the pic (too small!), from what I can see it sure looks to be in error. As someone else mentioned, you are innocent until proven guilty, and the crown has to prove that when you request a court date...which I suspect they will quickly decide upon review of the photos that they would be unlikely to be able to do in front of a judge, so it'll probably get dropped at the preliminary interview level, if not even before that.
When it comes to photo radar or red light cams like this you are *still* innocent until you pay the fine...at which point you are admitting guilt. Request a court date and I suspect you'll find it goes away.
Although it's hard to see the pic (too small!), from what I can see it sure looks to be in error. As someone else mentioned, you are innocent until proven guilty, and the crown has to prove that when you request a court date...which I suspect they will quickly decide upon review of the photos that they would be unlikely to be able to do in front of a judge, so it'll probably get dropped at the preliminary interview level, if not even before that.
When it comes to photo radar or red light cams like this you are *still* innocent until you pay the fine...at which point you are admitting guilt. Request a court date and I suspect you'll find it goes away.
Interesting, as I was under the impression that photo radar/ red light cams was guilty and then you prove innocence.
Does anyone else think that the other car in the photo, when the light was red, turning in the intersection, is the one doing the 38km? Is that possible? I'm not at all sure how these cameras work.
Sent from a Samsung Galaxy far, far away using Tapatalk
You are NEVER guilty of almost all traffic offenses until you admit such and pay the fine, or are found guilty by the crown in court.
Look ok the back of any traffic ticket and you'll see it worded in such a fashion that by paying the fine you are effectively pleaing guilty as part of the process. If you choose to take it to court the check box includes wording with regards to pleaing not guilty.
Look ok the back of any traffic ticket and you'll see it worded in such a fashion that by paying the fine you are effectively pleaing guilty as part of the process. If you choose to take it to court the check box includes wording with regards to pleaing not guilty.
TorontoBoy
Well-known member
To the crown prosecutor: No law enforcement officer was present. Photos of the incident are contradictory. Show me 100% proof of the infraction. The photos do not even show the vehicle inside the intersection. Photos are still shots and not video. They have a time stamp but do not show the effects of speed. If there is not a photo and a time stamp that shows the OP was in the intersection during a red light, there is serious doubt that the infraction was committed.
Just so you know, in the photos of my red light infraction it was clear where I was when. No clarification or doubt came up for me. I was wrong, I was caught, here's the proof.
Just so you know, in the photos of my red light infraction it was clear where I was when. No clarification or doubt came up for me. I was wrong, I was caught, here's the proof.
Last edited:
Thankfully it's been a while since I've gotten a ticket.
Sent from a Samsung Galaxy far, far away using Tapatalk
True enough...CASH COW! However I wouldn't doubt if a bunch of those could hike your rates. NO it wasn't you
BUT you are choosing to allow your car to be driven by the same arsehole that can't figure out how to use the brakes...
JamJam
Well-known member
True enough...CASH COW! However I wouldn't doubt if a bunch of those could hike your rates. NO it wasn't you
Because it doesn't get attached to your license there would be no record of it for your insurance company to search/find to raise your rates.
This situation is almost a catch22.... if you go in to fight then you would almost/probably have to admit you were the person driving. now it can be attributed to you. If you don't fight it they get your money even though they were or could be wrong.
Riceburner
Well-known member
No you don't admit you were driving. The owner is challenging the ticket. End of story.
The OP's car is about 5 meters long. Look at how far he would have to go on a right turn to fall out of camera view. Not very far at all.
The OP's recorded 38 kmph works out to a speed of about 10.6 meters per second. The second photo is taken one or two seconds after the first photo, which would give the OP's car enough time to do a quick right turn and be out of the camera's view before the second photo is taken.
Any prosecutor with any experience do these tickets would know this and wouldn't consider it to be much of a fight at all. All he or she has to do is fall back on the "machine caught him at speed entering the intersection on a a red light and here is the photo of him entering, and here is a photo immediately after showing him gone, ergo he did not stop".
robmack
Well-known member
I'm no lawyer but the OP is required to come to a complete stop at the line when the signal is red, and only proceed to make a legal right turn at the intersection when he has yielded to traffic and pedestrians. He failed to stop for the signal, according to HTA 144(19).
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. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (18 ).
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).
The same charge could be cited for a slow speed roll-through on a stop sign (whether proceeding through or turning right).
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. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (18 ).
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).
The same charge could be cited for a slow speed roll-through on a stop sign (whether proceeding through or turning right).
Last edited:
MTRCYCLS
Well-known member
valid, but you are assuming the car made a right turn. Could have reversed. The 38 km/h also doesnt make any sense since the 2nd photo shows no car yet the speed still says 38 km/h.
the red loght camera must take 1 photo of the vehicle entering an intersection at a certain speed which triggers the camera, then follow up with 1 or more photos of the car proceeding through the intersection (which id it not). They are assuming my car proceed through the intersection based on a still photo.
http://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/990277
i dont know if that is valid but it is what i found through a quick google search.
Last edited:
Without the second photo showing the car actually in the intersection with the light red, there is no evidence for what actually happened. If the car had kept going straight at the alleged 38 km/h, it should still be in the second photo. The position of the car in the first photo doesn't make sense for making a right turn at speed. It should get tossed.
FLSTC
Well-known member
The first photo of your car/plate and the testimony of the operator that the equipment was functional is sufficient evidence to convict. That the second photo does not include your car is not evidence of a malfunctioning system. Best you could hope for is a reduction in the fine.
Kri$han
Well-known member
*reposted cuz WIN*
Agree with above...
Remind me again why the courts are so backed up with BS cases???
Were you driving?
Did you go through a red because you couldn't be bothered stopping?
Is the man out to get you?
Did you get away without major point already?
DID YOU ANSWER YES TO ANY AND ALL OF THE ABOVE...
OFF THE RECORD OF COURSE
Remind me again why the courts are so backed up with BS cases???
Were you driving?
Did you go through a red because you couldn't be bothered stopping?
Is the man out to get you?
Did you get away without major point already?
DID YOU ANSWER YES TO ANY AND ALL OF THE ABOVE...
OFF THE RECORD OF COURSE
Last edited:
It wasn't his fault. He was texting and wasn't able to see that the light had changed to red.
The burden of proof is, however, somewhat flipped in such cases.
|
|
|
|
|