stop sign and white line not aligned, can this be used as defence in court? | GTAMotorcycle.com

stop sign and white line not aligned, can this be used as defence in court?

S

SkyRider

Well-known member
there's like a 3 meter gap between the sign and line. what do you think gtam brothers? never seen this before.
 
You are expected to stop at the white line, then move forward. If no white line, then stop at stop sign.
 
SkyRider said:
yes. i always stop. but it's so automatic that i dont even remember it. like when you go out you wonder if you locked your front door or not.
Click to expand...

so did you get ticketed or what? what was the infraction? not enough details in OP.
 
disobey stop sign ticket. but in court i read that i dont need to prove im innocent. the cop has to prove im guilty (if he shows up) and all i have to do is bring doubt in the officer's notes and i have a chance of beating it.
 
unfortunately in traffic court, you have to prove innocence, not the other way around. its not up to the officer to prove guilt. in criminal court, prosecutor has to prove guilt, beyond reasonable doubt, but traffic court works differently.

you are expected to stop at the line. if there is no line, stop at the sign. if you stop with one wheel on either side of the line, you are technically guilty of running the stop sign.

if you stop at the line, and the view of the coming traffic is obscured (trees etc.), you are still expected to stop at the line, then move forward until you can see clearly.



if you did not stop at or on the line, you are guilty.
 
There is maybe one shot at the original poster's defence. I'm not going to do the research of tracking down exactly which clause of which book needs to be looked at ... THAT is a task for the original poster to do. But ... here it is.

There is a massive set of documents called the Ontario Traffic Manual, otherwise known as the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. That is the book that contains ALL the requirements for what a sign is supposed to look like, where it is supposed to be located, etc.

If you can find the requirements for where a stop sign and stop line are supposed to be located (with regards to the intersection, and with regards to each other), and you can demonstrate that the intersection in question is not in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, then MAYBE you have a shot at a defence, on the grounds that either the sign or the line were not in accordance with the regulations.

If the stop line and the sign are within what is prescribed in that book, you are out of luck.
 
I believe the stop sign can be up to 20 meters before the intersection, white line or corner of the intersection is where you are supposed to stop
 
The lines are not what is written into Ontario law - precisely because of the possibility that they could be snow-covered. The sign is.
 
Brian P said:
There is maybe one shot at the original poster's defence. I'm not going to do the research of tracking down exactly which clause of which book needs to be looked at ... THAT is a task for the original poster to do. But ... here it is.

There is a massive set of documents called the Ontario Traffic Manual, otherwise known as the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. That is the book that contains ALL the requirements for what a sign is supposed to look like, where it is supposed to be located, etc.

If you can find the requirements for where a stop sign and stop line are supposed to be located (with regards to the intersection, and with regards to each other), and you can demonstrate that the intersection in question is not in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, then MAYBE you have a shot at a defence, on the grounds that either the sign or the line were not in accordance with the regulations.

If the stop line and the sign are within what is prescribed in that book, you are out of luck.
Click to expand...

Apparently replaced by the Ontario Traffic Manual. Go here and search for it by title. It will be listed in several sections.

http://www.library.mto.gov.on.ca/webopac/search.asp?mode=search
 
vociferous said:
unfortunately in traffic court, you have to prove innocence, not the other way around. its not up to the officer to prove guilt. in criminal court, prosecutor has to prove guilt, beyond reasonable doubt, but traffic court works differently.

The statement above is 100% incorrect

The statement below is 100% correct

you are expected to stop at the line. if there is no line, stop at the sign. if you stop with one wheel on either side of the line, you are technically guilty of running the stop sign.

if you stop at the line, and the view of the coming traffic is obscured (trees etc.), you are still expected to stop at the line, then move forward until you can see clearly.
if you did not stop at or on the line, you are guilty.
Click to expand...

HTA says:
"136. (1) Every driver or street car operator approaching a stop sign at an intersection,

(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...."

Interesting that "stop line" is not defined in he HTA... maybe that could be a defence.
 
bitzz,

i have never seen a case in traffic court where the prosecutor does anything besides present what the officer has put before him. if the defense (you or whoever) does not prove their innocence, you are found guilty.

im not sure if its supposed to be that way, and it shouldnt be like that, but it is.

:(
 
The Crown presents the case showing that the elements of the offense exist. If the Crown can't do that then the charge is dropped. If the Crown does do that then you have to defend your case and demonstrate that the Crown's case does not stand up against "reasonable doubt". Same in any court... I don't see how you're thinking it's any different, unless I'm missing your point.
 
interesting info guys. much appreciated. i have come up a few defences.

just wondering though, if my plan A gets rejected, can i still use plan B?

for example, plan A, i did stop but officer did not see. if judge doesn't buy it, can i then go, well the stop line was not visible due to snow. and so on.

BUT actually my first defence is that since the officer's notes were mostly illegible, i could not prepare a good defence. i did request a typed version after getting disclosure but did not get it on time. but i have a feeling this would not fly
 
Last edited:
bitzz said:
HTA says:
"136. (1) Every driver or street car operator approaching a stop sign at an intersection,

(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...."

Interesting that "stop line" is not defined in he HTA... maybe that could be a defence.
Click to expand...

The stop sign simply means it's a stop intersection - it is not the point at which the vehicle must stop. As the quoted section 136 (above) says - it's the stop line, the crosswalk (if not marked, it's the sidewalk, as if extended across the road), or in the absence of both of those, the edge of the intersecting roadway (i.e. the boundary of the intersection). Although the sign may coincidentally line up with one of those, the sign itself is never the stopping point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom