Fail to stop for Amber Light - is this a joke [Archive]

balance

May 29th, 2012, 12:44 AM

Ok got a fine for $180 for failing to stop for an amber light

Was it HTA section 144.15?

Amber light
(15) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed with caution. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (15).

I'm going to court, what a was of tax payer's money....

I going the speed limit 60km/h and cross the intersection safely.

btw this was on steels ave

niroopg

May 29th, 2012, 12:48 AM

balance

May 29th, 2012, 12:51 AM

this is no laughing matter lol

wasting my time...

feelthedeal

May 29th, 2012, 12:52 AM

balance

May 29th, 2012, 12:55 AM

...but could you have stopped safely?

I was driving under the posted speed limit and saw the green light. I am fully aware of the requirement to stop the vehicle if I'm safely able to do so when the light turns amber. When the light changed to amber, based on the conditions, my knowledge of the car, distance from the intersection and all other factors, I made the decision that I could not safely stop the vehicle in time. I then checked for other traffic, and proceeded with caution through the intersection.

Using this in court lol

but serious I'm not going to hard brake on a yellow light... when its safe and other direction had no left turning vehicles its like 12:00AM

ssbtech

May 29th, 2012, 12:57 AM

boyohboy

May 29th, 2012, 12:57 AM

I doubt you'll have to say anything, the cop probably wont' show for cases like this.

balance

May 29th, 2012, 01:01 AM

ssbtech

May 29th, 2012, 01:15 AM

Hmm so much effort, haven't use physics formula in years lol

Yet you're willing to go to court and potentially be embarrassed when you don't have a solid rebuttal for the officer's testimony?

Tornado F2

May 29th, 2012, 01:23 AM

If you feel like doing some maths, you could go back there and time the duration of the amber light phase of the light cycle. You can then calculate, based on where you were precicely when you saw the light turn from green to amber, if you had enough time to stop based on the ITE formula for deceleration.

I doubt you'll have to say anything, the cop probably wont' show for cases like this.

Reminds me of a similar situation I was in some years back. The thing that got me motivated that time was that the officer who pulled me up lied about his location, because I saw him (unaware it was a police car) in my rear-view mirror doing a 3-point turn before coming after me. I went back to the intersection, prepared a detailed diagram, timed the lights, etc. When my day in court came I spoke with a man that I thought was a clerk and showed him my notes. Turned out he was the prosecutor. Shortly after court proceedings started he came to tell me "the officer was unavailable". The officer was there before the trial, but obviously realised he was going to have to lie under oath to convict me and decided instead to do a runner. What a waste of time that was. I was looking forward to making my presentation too, I'd got myself so psyched up with the adrenaline flowing and everything. I wish the police would concentrate on catching bad guys and dangerous drivers and stop handing out tickets just to meet an artificial quota.

yao416

May 29th, 2012, 01:27 AM

Fight it

niroopg

May 29th, 2012, 01:39 AM

Hmm so much effort, haven't use physics formula in years lol

I hope so :D

I would do it just to embarrass the officer and prosecutor. I would also video tape it and post it on youtube lol. Then I would go to the precinct and show it to all his buddies.

googoo

May 29th, 2012, 02:28 AM

Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed with caution.

you could have stopped easily but just couldn't be bothered.....I'm just guessing of course!

Superboot

May 29th, 2012, 08:49 AM

why should we take your word over the cops? perhaps you could have stopped and the ticket is justified...just sayin

r1lee

May 29th, 2012, 09:05 AM

you could have stopped easily but just couldn't be bothered.....I'm just guessing of course!

I happen to agree, if the officer shows up what are you going to say? Going the speed limit should give you enough time to stop on an Amber.

jasonkwan86

May 29th, 2012, 09:07 AM

did u catch it on dash cam?

curtis

May 29th, 2012, 09:56 AM

These days, many of the yellows in Toronto are very short. It should be a fairly easy defence.

If you feel like doing some maths, you could go back there and time the duration of the amber light phase of the light cycle. You can then calculate, based on where you were precicely when you saw the light turn from green to amber, if you had enough time to stop based on the ITE formula for deceleration.

niroopg

May 29th, 2012, 10:00 AM

I happen to agree, if the officer shows up what are you going to say? Going the speed limit should give you enough time to stop on an Amber.

How can you prove that it was safe to stop (which was is what the prosecutor will have to prove)?

I would just say, there were cars in close proximity behind me and was worried that I would be rear ended if I engaged the brakes in the situation. The intersection was clear of all cars and safely passed through the intersection with caution, which is my full right.

Case closed.

Notadot

May 29th, 2012, 10:19 AM

How can you prove that it was safe to stop (which was is what the prosecutor will have to prove)?

I would just say, there were cars in close proximity behind me and was worried that I would be rear ended if I engaged the brakes in the situation. The intersection was clear of all cars and safely passed through the intersection with caution, which is my full right.

Case closed.
Then the cop hits the stand and says that there was no traffic following anywhere near the OP, that the OP was a considerable distance away from the intersection when the light turned yellow and had plenty of space in which to stop safely, that he heard the OP's car begin rapid accleration as soon the light turned yellow, and that the light turned red an instant before the OP cleared the intersection, all of which indicates that the OP should have had plenty of room to stop.

Finding of guilt.

r1lee

May 29th, 2012, 10:28 AM

Then the cop hits the stand and says that there was no traffic following anywhere near the OP, that the OP was a considerable distance away from the intersection when the light turned yellow and had plenty of space in which to stop safely, that he heard the OP's car begin rapid accleration as soon the light turned yellow, and that the light turned red an instant before the OP cleared the intersection, all of which indicates that the OP should have had plenty of room to stop.

Finding of guilt.

+1, unfortunately traffic court is not Innocent until Proven Guilty", it's the exact opposite.

Unless the officer's statement is different then his notes, you better be prepared.

longitude

May 29th, 2012, 10:28 AM

Fight it

words of wisdom.

GSRee

May 29th, 2012, 10:42 AM

These days, many of the yellows in Toronto are very short. It should be a fairly easy defence.

The lights are supposed to be timed such that you have time to stop in a safe manner if you're doing the posted speed limit. So I can only assume that they are calibrated this way, and so the problem isn't that the lights are too short, it's that people don't do the posted speed limit and so they only seem too short.

Of course I could be wrong, and maybe they're intentionally shortening them to increase the number of yellow/red runners that they can catch. I've definitely heard of certain areas doing that, but haven't heard about it in Toronto yet.

kennyluo

May 29th, 2012, 10:44 AM

I would do it just to embarrass the officer and prosecutor. I would also video tape it and post it on youtube lol. Then I would go to the precinct and show it to all his buddies.

I think video recording in a court room is not allowed

Jeff-TheBiz

May 29th, 2012, 11:04 AM

I'm going to court = what a waste of tax payer's money....

You did it, just pay the ticket.

If it is a waste of your time, then figure out how much your time is worth...

curtis

May 29th, 2012, 11:17 AM

Yes, supposed to be. There are lot of safety deficiencies out there. You just have to know where to look. And I've noticed Yellow light timing is one of them. Sight lines and clear zones are another that is common in rebuilt areas.

The lights are supposed to be timed such that you have time to stop in a safe manner if you're doing the posted speed limit. So I can only assume that they are calibrated this way, and so the problem isn't that the lights are too short, it's that people don't do the posted speed limit and so they only seem too short.

Of course I could be wrong, and maybe they're intentionally shortening them to increase the number of yellow/red runners that they can catch. I've definitely heard of certain areas doing that, but haven't heard about it in Toronto yet.

gilboman

May 29th, 2012, 12:01 PM

the cop wanted to pull you over to check for DUI or whatever but needed an excuse, so he pulled you over for running an amber as an excuse to snoop on you.

JohnB

May 29th, 2012, 12:34 PM

Ok got a fine for $180 for failing to stop for an amber light

I'm going to court, what a was of tax payer's money....

I going the speed limit 60km/h and cross the intersection safely.

btw this was on steels ave

Thats why most people hate the "police." Instead of catching criminals or doing whatever they should do cops are just meter maids catching driving infractions...wow thanks police great work LOL.

Tornado F2

May 29th, 2012, 01:11 PM

Of course I could be wrong, and maybe they're intentionally shortening them to increase the number of yellow/red runners that they can catch. I've definitely heard of certain areas doing that, but haven't heard about it in Toronto yet.

That would be a dangerous and negligent practice if it was intended to increase the number of tickets issuable. By shortening the yellow interval it increases the chance of collisions since it brings the perpendicular green forward, potentially bringing traffic into the intersection before it is fully cleared.

vero95

May 29th, 2012, 01:24 PM

I wonder how he is going to prove OP could not stop safely
those fail to stop on amber tickets remind me of speeding few kmh over the limit tickets

Notadot

May 29th, 2012, 01:26 PM

Thats why most people hate the "police." Instead of catching criminals or doing whatever they should do cops are just meter maids catching driving infractions...wow thanks police great work LOL.

Try this exercise. Look up the number of serious injuries and fatalities due to violent crime. Now do the same with respect to traffic accidents, especially those occurring at intersections.

defencerulez

May 29th, 2012, 01:57 PM

uber_shnitz

May 29th, 2012, 02:12 PM

The law isn't contextual. I don't know the full extent of your scenario, but you're supposed to slow down at an amber light in preparation of a red. The only time you shouldn't is if you're too close to the intersection to properly brake in time. This is known by civil engineers as "the dilemma zone" and it's a set distance before the light if you enter this distance at the speed limit, then it's deemed you won't have time to break and should cross the intersection (this relates to how they time the lights). Most drivers though do not experience this and simply speed up at the apperance of an amber to be able to pass the intersection before it turns red. Was this your case?

If it was, technically legally, you're in the wrong, regardless if there were other people in the intersection or not.

Mind you, you can easily contest your ticket if the officer gave it to you on the assumption that "you had time to brake but didn't" as it's nigh impossible for the officer to prove he had a proper gauge/idea of the "dilemma zone" so the ticket is situational and based on his jugement.

niroopg

May 29th, 2012, 02:30 PM

This is lame... You are pretty much pleading guilty with this argument...

I guess op might feel better if the cop gave him a fail to stop for a red light tix...

How is that pleading guilty? There are two components to the law. Simply passing through the yellow is not illegal. Passing through the yellow when it was safe to stop is the second component. How is going to prove that second element? Admission to going through an intersection during a yellow is not enough to pass a guilty verdict. All the OP has to do is make a statement that there existed circumstances that made it unsafe.

balance

May 29th, 2012, 03:19 PM

This is lame... You are pretty much pleading guilty with this argument...

I guess op might feel better if the cop gave him a fail to stop for a red light tix...

So your saying a cop should abuse his authority... when I cross the other side and it was still yellow...

Btw I didn't accelerate during the intersection.

balance

May 29th, 2012, 03:23 PM

You did it, just pay the ticket.

If it is a waste of your time, then figure out how much your time is worth...

Uh I'm going to pledge guilty to something I DIDN'T DO WRONG

aemi

May 29th, 2012, 03:47 PM

while it may take a while, please let us know the result of this

good luck.

vero95

May 29th, 2012, 04:37 PM

while it may take a while, please let us know the result of this

good luck.

yeah, let us know
while the cop may claim you had time to stop safely, his definition of safely can be different than yours. a simple statement like saying that you were not aware if someone was going behind you so stopping abruptly may be less safe than going through the empty intersection may put in doubt what he considers stopping safely

zonetbh

May 29th, 2012, 04:46 PM

I happen to agree, if the officer shows up what are you going to say? Going the speed limit should give you enough time to stop on an Amber.

That statement is completely conditional. The condition being how close you are to the intersection when the light goes yellow.

vero95

May 29th, 2012, 04:47 PM

magic18

May 29th, 2012, 05:12 PM

if you could have stopped, you probably should have....
on the other hand, i think "failure to stop for amber" should be let off with a warning...

Notadot

May 29th, 2012, 05:21 PM

how many accidents happen because of running the amber light? :-0

How many happen because of running a stale amber that turned red before you were clear of the intersection? That's why there is a running a yellow light offence.

Voltex

May 29th, 2012, 05:26 PM

I happen to agree, if the officer shows up what are you going to say? Going the speed limit should give you enough time to stop on an Amber.

Lol logic fail.

The speed is irrelevant. If the amber light comes on just before the OP crossed the intersection, there's no way he could've stopped even if he was going the speed limit.

virtuman1980

May 29th, 2012, 05:58 PM

OP, I saw a similar incident around the same time frame yesterday? Where on Steeles did this happen? Did you drive a Toyota Sienna and got pulled over by a white police jeep? If so, I was in the middle lane and didn't run the light because I noticed the police jeep lol

magic18

May 29th, 2012, 06:46 PM

JohnB

May 29th, 2012, 07:05 PM

Try this exercise. Look up the number of serious injuries and fatalities due to violent crime. Now do the same with respect to traffic accidents, especially those occurring at intersections.

A Maclean’s survey of selected cities found errant drivers are an increasingly lucrative source of funds. In Calgary, the number of speeding and other traffic violations jumped 31 per cent between 2005 and 2010. That dumped more than $39 million into city coffers, in addition to a provincial share of almost 17 per cent per cent of ticket revenue and a 15 per cent share for a victims of crime program. In Toronto last year, city police issued 700,721 trafﬁc tickets, a 48 per cent increase from five years earlier. That amounts to some $60 million in fine revenue flowing through Toronto’s court service, of which the city gets the lion’s share. Yes, perhaps, every traffic stop makes the streets a little safer. Still, one wonders if the 94 per cent increase in stop sign violations means Toronto attitudes toward this most basic of traffic signs have degenerated these past five years, or if police have a greater incentive to enforce.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/08/25/too-many-cops/

Notadot

May 29th, 2012, 08:06 PM

A Maclean’s survey of selected cities found errant drivers are an increasingly lucrative source of funds. In Calgary, the number of speeding and other traffic violations jumped 31 per cent between 2005 and 2010. That dumped more than $39 million into city coffers, in addition to a provincial share of almost 17 per cent per cent of ticket revenue and a 15 per cent share for a victims of crime program. In Toronto last year, city police issued 700,721 trafﬁc tickets, a 48 per cent increase from five years earlier. That amounts to some $60 million in fine revenue flowing through Toronto’s court service, of which the city gets the lion’s share. Yes, perhaps, every traffic stop makes the streets a little safer. Still, one wonders if the 94 per cent increase in stop sign violations means Toronto attitudes toward this most basic of traffic signs have degenerated these past five years, or if police have a greater incentive to enforce.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/08/25/too-many-cops/

Are you suggesting that it is wrong to give stop sign runners tickets? Does it really matter that the city gains revenue from traffic offenders? Does not every driver have a choice as to whether or not they contribute to city revenue in this way through their choices of driving habits?

ssbtech

May 29th, 2012, 08:11 PM

Are you suggesting that it is wrong to give stop sign runners tickets? Does it really matter that the city gains revenue from traffic offenders? Does not every driver have a choice as to whether or not they contribute to city revenue in this way through their choices of driving habits?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the police don't ticket stop sign runners, but a "stop sign runner" includes people who roll through them at 0.5 km/hr. Do they really deserve tickets?

Notadot

May 29th, 2012, 08:17 PM

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the police don't ticket stop sign runners, but a "stop sign runner" includes people who roll through them at 0.5 km/hr. Do they really deserve tickets?

Are people getting ticketed for rolling through at 0.5 km/hr? At what roll-through speed do you think they should be exempt from being ticketed?

ssbtech

May 29th, 2012, 08:30 PM

Are people getting ticketed for rolling through at 0.5 km/hr? At what roll-through speed do you think they should be exempt from being ticketed?

Does coming to a complete stop guarantee that the driver is paying full attention?

Notadot

May 29th, 2012, 09:48 PM

Does coming to a complete stop guarantee that the driver is paying full attention?

No, but it does give them a better shot at seeing something coming than if they simply rolled through while not paying attention.

ssbtech

May 29th, 2012, 09:54 PM

No, but it does give them a better shot at seeing something coming than if they simply rolled through while not paying attention.

You're making the assumption that someone rolling through at a very low speed isn't paying attention.

uber_shnitz

May 29th, 2012, 09:56 PM

This isn't about arguing the laws. Law is not contextual which is why any self judgement made by police officers can be (usually) successfully contested. It's not your job as a driver to assume what you do is perfectly safe because you've never had an accident.

Zelig

May 29th, 2012, 09:56 PM

Thats why most people hate the "police." Instead of catching criminals or doing whatever they should do cops are just meter maids catching driving infractions...wow thanks police great work LOL.

Most people don't hate the police. I feel bad for your group of friends if most of them hate the police.

A Maclean’s survey of selected cities found errant drivers are an increasingly lucrative source of funds. In Calgary, the number of speeding and other traffic violations jumped 31 per cent between 2005 and 2010. That dumped more than $39 million into city coffers, in addition to a provincial share of almost 17 per cent per cent of ticket revenue and a 15 per cent share for a victims of crime program. In Toronto last year, city police issued 700,721 trafﬁc tickets, a 48 per cent increase from five years earlier. That amounts to some $60 million in fine revenue flowing through Toronto’s court service, of which the city gets the lion’s share. Yes, perhaps, every traffic stop makes the streets a little safer. Still, one wonders if the 94 per cent increase in stop sign violations means Toronto attitudes toward this most basic of traffic signs have degenerated these past five years, or if police have a greater incentive to enforce.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/08/25/too-many-cops/

So your saying fining speeders and traffic violators helps fund more police to prevent other crimes?

Notadot

May 29th, 2012, 10:12 PM

You're making the assumption that someone rolling through at a very low speed isn't paying attention.

Someone rolling through without stopping will usually not have the same ability to fully scan an intersection as someone who has come to a full stop, especially in built-up parts of the city where sight-lines are often obstructed by buildings, other vehicles, transit shelters, and various other types of street furniture and fixtures. Rolling through a stop means that your attention is divided between the act of driving, and the act of scanning for traffic conflicts. Coming to a full stop means that your attention can be fully directed to looking for traffic conflicts to ensure your way is clear.

hmm

May 29th, 2012, 10:28 PM

quotas don't fill themselves brah..

ssbtech

May 29th, 2012, 10:30 PM

Rolling through a stop means that your attention is divided between the act of driving, and the act of scanning for traffic conflicts.

You should always be scanning for traffic conflicts, not just when you're stopped.

JohnB

May 29th, 2012, 10:31 PM

Once overlooked minor infractions are now being ticketed to generate revenue...reference 48% increase in ticketing over 5 years.

flyguy3bua

May 29th, 2012, 10:35 PM

Someone rolling through without stopping will usually not have the same ability to fully scan an intersection as someone who has come to a full stop, especially in built-up parts of the city where sight-lines are often obstructed by buildings, other vehicles, transit shelters, and various other types of street furniture and fixtures. Rolling through a stop means that your attention is divided between the act of driving, and the act of scanning for traffic conflicts. Coming to a full stop means that your attention can be fully directed to looking for traffic conflicts to ensure your way is clear.

This would completely depend upon your view on stop signs. If you want to follow every law to the letter, then you're right, do a complete stop. But if your view on stop signs is that they are erect for traffic safety, then there is no difference between a complete stop or a rolling stop provided that the driver approached the intersection attentively. However this is completely irrelevant to the thread. It's not about stop signs, it's about receiving a ticket from a traffic cop for no obvious reason. Who among us does not proceed through an amber light? If the OP did so with caution and did so safely, no traffic officer with an ounce of common sense should ever hand out a ticket for driving through an amber light, which is why the OP is so upset, because the alleged infraction is complete bullcrap.

giggety

May 29th, 2012, 10:40 PM

My buddy got charged with this same offence. Fought it and lost. Used the excuse that there was a car behind him and he entered the intersection while the light was amber and he didn't think he could stop. Officer took the stand and said "in my opinion you could have stopped safely" Judge agreed. Not saying it's fair but the word of the officer counts for more than people think.

Notadot

May 29th, 2012, 11:09 PM

Who among us does not proceed through an amber light? If the OP did so with caution and did so safely, no traffic officer with an ounce of common sense should ever hand out a ticket for driving through an amber light, which is why the OP is so upset, because the alleged infraction is complete bullcrap.

If I can come to a safe and smooth stop, I do. I don't try to squeak through. Period.

Which gets back to the law. It's not can you can squeak through the intersection while it's still yellow. It's if you can safely stop, you must. Full stop, end of story.

Notadot

May 29th, 2012, 11:11 PM

Once overlooked minor infractions are now being ticketed to generate revenue...reference 48% increase in ticketing over 5 years.

It is so easy to avoid being part of that revenue stream. It is your choice whether you contribute to the city or not. For some reason, some people like to contribute over and over again, while others choose to never do so.

JohnB

May 29th, 2012, 11:37 PM

It is so easy to avoid being part of that revenue stream. It is your choice whether you contribute to the city or not. For some reason, some people like to contribute over and over again, while others choose to never do so.

Cops can stop/ticket you anytime they want...for any reason.

Safe driving to all.

Notadot

May 29th, 2012, 11:49 PM

Cops can stop/ticket you anytime they want...for any reason.

Sure, but how is it that some never get tickets or even get stopped while others seem to get them habitually? It seems that some drivers out there paint a "ticket me" invitation on themselves with the way they drive.

flyguy3bua

May 30th, 2012, 12:05 AM

Tornado F2

May 30th, 2012, 02:07 AM

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the police don't ticket stop sign runners, but a "stop sign runner" includes people who roll through them at 0.5 km/hr. Do they really deserve tickets?

Although technically they could, I would hope not. If the intersection is completely clear and it's safe to roll at a low speed then the driver is doing his/her bit to save fuel and help the environment. It takes more fuel to stop, then start again from that complete stop, than it does to keep rolling with that last bit of momentum. Sometimes a bit of common sense should be applied.

HandsomeRob

May 30th, 2012, 08:03 AM

Sure, but how is it that some never get tickets or even get stopped while others seem to get them habitually? It seems that some drivers out there paint a "ticket me" invitation on themselves with the way they drive.

X1000.

I've not been pulled over in 5 years, every ticket I've ever received has been deserved. I've never seen or known somebody to get a ticket for running a yellow or a California stop. I would like to see them, in Vancouver at least, actually enforcing the road rules. RE: Post videos of daily events from your dash cam here! (http://forums.redflagdeals.com/merged-post-videos-daily-events-your-dash-cam-here-your-dash-cam-only-1106658/).
I drive an average of 12 Km per day and see at least three instances of pure idiocracy per day, and approximately one instance that almost results in somebody being hospitalized while the offending driver has no clue per week.

Yesterday I was in the middle of a lineup of 10 cars at a red light at this intersection;
http://oi47.tinypic.com/2jb9kqb.jpg
Some scumbag in a minivan passes on the right doing 60 with the left wheels in the bike lane and right wheels on front lawns. If the utility poll hadn't been there the cyclist in the crosswalk would have certainly been hospitalized if not killed. Not one car turning left, he collected perhaps 7 car lengths for his effort with no time gained. I've seen plenty of cops watch garbage like this and do nothing.

vero95

May 30th, 2012, 08:42 AM

How many happen because of running a stale amber that turned red before you were clear of the intersection? That's why there is a running a yellow light offence.

I was asking you how many and you seem to have no clue but surprisingly you keep arguing as if there was plenty of those accidents
btw, you are not allowed to enter an intersection until it's clear

uber_shnitz

May 30th, 2012, 09:45 AM

Although technically they could, I would hope not. If the intersection is completely clear and it's safe to roll at a low speed then the driver is doing his/her bit to save fuel and help the environment. It takes more fuel to stop, then start again from that complete stop, than it does to keep rolling with that last bit of momentum. Sometimes a bit of common sense should be applied.

The problem is that if they start making exceptions, common sense or not, everyone will want an exception.

jeeva86

May 30th, 2012, 11:44 AM

Lol logic fail.

The speed is irrelevant. If the amber light comes on just before the OP crossed the intersection, there's no way he could've stopped even if he was going the speed limit.

+1, why did it take 40+posts to realize this?

How can the cop prove at which point during the amber the OP passed the intersection?