Automotive

Ask me anything about fighting your traffic ticket (Speeding, Parking, etc.)

Newbie
Apr 10, 2011
7 posts
Richmond Hill
CNeufeld wrote:
Oct 9th, 2018 1:48 pm
Request your disclosure, and if you don't get it in time for your trial, you should be able to easily get a delay. I'm surprised that you got a "trial date" from the officer, though... They don't control when the trials happen. Or did you get a summons?
https://www.ontariotraffictickets.com/c ... ns-appear/

C
You're right, it sounds like I received a summons to appear. Should I still request disclosure?
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
9749 posts
6137 upvotes
Edmonton
jbs101 wrote:
Oct 9th, 2018 2:05 pm
You're right, it sounds like I received a summons to appear. Should I still request disclosure?
Well, the first appearance won't be a court date, so you probably won't get disclosure before then. You should do some more reading/research on what to expect.

C
Newbie
Oct 8, 2018
3 posts
40M-2018-05-21 14.39.49.jpg
When I attended court to postpone the trial every single person took the reduced fine other than one guy who had precisely the same ticket as mine - same place, identical speed, one week later. The officer was not available but the prosecutor would ditch the case because of the "extreme" nature of the violation. So I either plea bargain or defend. The officer's testimony is a lie and I hope that I can make that apparent by showing the inconsistency of his position with his claim to have seen me approaching at about 100km/hr from 100 metres. The photos help demonstrate that. They also show the position of the radar machine mounted on the adjacent lamppost which he likely used for guidance rather than viewing my vehicle in the distance. See sample photo taken from 40 metres with my car hidden just as his was.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
9749 posts
6137 upvotes
Edmonton
brian636309644922974000 wrote:
Oct 9th, 2018 2:43 pm
40M-2018-05-21 14.39.49.jpgWhen I attended court to postpone the trial every single person took the reduced fine other than one guy who had precisely the same ticket as mine - same place, identical speed, one week later. The officer was not available but the prosecutor would ditch the case because of the "extreme" nature of the violation. So I either plea bargain or defend. The officer's testimony is a lie and I hope that I can make that apparent by showing the inconsistency of his position with his claim to have seen me approaching at about 100km/hr from 100 metres. The photos help demonstrate that. They also show the position of the radar machine mounted on the adjacent lamppost which he likely used for guidance rather than viewing my vehicle in the distance. See sample photo taken from 40 metres with my car hidden just as his was.
Not sure what you're trying to show. But here's my thoughts...

First of all, you'll need to follow the proper procedures to getting the pictures admitted as evidence. I'll have to leave that to you to dig into, but it's not as simple as taking a bunch of pics with your phone camera and printing them off your home printer.

Second, how will you prove that the location you've taken pictures from is the same as where the cop was parked? You saying you went back to take pictures from where the officer was located isn't any kind of proof, really. If you had pictures of the officer's car parked, that might be another story, but I'm pretty sure that didn't happen.

Third, it looks like from that position, there's decent visibility down the road. If your car is 40m from the post the radar display is on, the car that's clearly visible could very easily be another 40m past that (so 80m total). And it looks like you could easily see further down the road beyond that. There's a rolling hill, but you may have to show how far the officer can see from where you can prove the officer was located to discredit his "100m". For example, it looks like there's the top of a car coming up the rise in your picture. To me, that looks like it's a long ways away (> 100m). But there's an awful lot of manipulation that can be done in an image to change the perspective based on focal length. So again, you're back to actually proving how far the officer can see.

Finally, the officer's testimony will probably be that he got your speed on his gun. Unless you can get him to admit that he never got you on his gun and was JUST using the radar machine, the position and existence of the radar machine is irrelevant.

Remember, the officer has evidence based on his radar gun that you were doing xxx km/h. After that, it's up to you to discredit him. You may want to post the redacted disclosure notes, if you want more help.

You don't have to prove anything to me or anyone else in here. But if you want to successfully defend your ticket, you need to remember the deck is stacked against you, and you'll need to go above and beyond to prove your case.

C
Newbie
Dec 19, 2015
8 posts
1 upvote
Ajax
May 2018 I made a left turn in an intersection (I was northbound and turned westbound) on a green light and was hit by a vehicle heading southbound. My van was hit in the passenger side rear quarter panel and I was hit with enough force that it spun me 90 degrees. I know I looked to see if the path was clear before starting my turn because I wouldn't be stupid enough to put my kid on the passenger side at risk, so please no judgement. Witnesses on-scene reported the other driver was speeding but left the scene when the emergency vehicles arrived on scene for some reason. It was my first ever accident as a driver of 20 years (never had a ticket before in my life either) and I didn't know to get witness info as I was injured and also a bit in shock at the time, I think. Police attended the scene and advised me I would likely be charged with careless driving because I was the one turning left and said it would be up to the officer at the collision center. Both vehicles were towed to the collision center and everyone went there. The other driver filed her accident report and left, I filed mine and was given a ticket for "left turn not in safety". The officer said to fight it and that he wouldn't oppose lowering the fee in court.

I went down to the court house to file for a court date to dispute the charge and received a letter in the mail with my court date for November 1st for the offence of IMPROPER LEFT TURN (HTA 141 (6)). Right on the paper it says I can request disclosure and had a fax number listed and I sent a request (the one from the link on the first page of this thread) July 3rd, July 30th, and again October 1st (was out of the country for August until mid-September). I haven't received anything in the mail as of yet and have the fax transmission receipts of these dates. Online there is a form for disclosure, should I try filling that out as well? The online form asks me to answer Yes or No about a Collision. The ticket does not mention the collision, so do I answer yes or no? Am I incriminating myself if I say yes and the ticket doesn't mention a collision or is it lying if I say no? Will I get disclosure (if I get it at all) from the cop who attended the scene or from the one at the collision center who issued the ticket (who was not at the scene)?

Thanks in advance for any help or advice. The fine isn't my concern, it's insurance... I do have accident forgiveness to help out, but I believe the ticket on my abstract might make a difference.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
9749 posts
6137 upvotes
Edmonton
gotaluvme81 wrote:
Oct 9th, 2018 3:29 pm
May 2018 I made a left turn in an intersection (I was northbound and turned westbound) on a green light and was hit by a vehicle heading southbound. My van was hit in the passenger side rear quarter panel and I was hit with enough force that it spun me 90 degrees. I know I looked to see if the path was clear before starting my turn because I wouldn't be stupid enough to put my kid on the passenger side at risk, so please no judgement. Witnesses on-scene reported the other driver was speeding but left the scene when the emergency vehicles arrived on scene for some reason. It was my first ever accident as a driver of 20 years (never had a ticket before in my life either) and I didn't know to get witness info as I was injured and also a bit in shock at the time, I think. Police attended the scene and advised me I would likely be charged with careless driving because I was the one turning left and said it would be up to the officer at the collision center. Both vehicles were towed to the collision center and everyone went there. The other driver filed her accident report and left, I filed mine and was given a ticket for "left turn not in safety". The officer said to fight it and that he wouldn't oppose lowering the fee in court.

I went down to the court house to file for a court date to dispute the charge and received a letter in the mail with my court date for November 1st for the offence of IMPROPER LEFT TURN (HTA 141 (6)). Right on the paper it says I can request disclosure and had a fax number listed and I sent a request (the one from the link on the first page of this thread) July 3rd, July 30th, and again October 1st (was out of the country for August until mid-September). I haven't received anything in the mail as of yet and have the fax transmission receipts of these dates. Online there is a form for disclosure, should I try filling that out as well? The online form asks me to answer Yes or No about a Collision. The ticket does not mention the collision, so do I answer yes or no? Am I incriminating myself if I say yes and the ticket doesn't mention a collision or is it lying if I say no? Will I get disclosure (if I get it at all) from the cop who attended the scene or from the one at the collision center who issued the ticket (who was not at the scene)?

Thanks in advance for any help or advice. The fine isn't my concern, it's insurance... I do have accident forgiveness to help out, but I believe the ticket on my abstract might make a difference.
You can give the courthouse a call. They may have the disclosure sitting there waiting for you.

Anything they plan on introducing as evidence has to be disclosed. So if they're going to have both officers there, they have to disclose the statements from both of them.

Aside from that... You may be able to negotiate the ticket down, but it will likely still be a conviction of some kind. I'm not judging, but the simple fact that you were turning left and an oncoming vehicle hit you is about all it takes. The witness (who I'm presuming you have no way of contacting) "reporting" that the other driver was speeding isn't of value unless you can get them to show up, and even if they did, it's not a slam-dunk just because the other car was speeding. It's still your responsibility to make that turn only when safe. And it clearly wasn't safe.

C
Jr. Member
Sep 24, 2014
101 posts
14 upvotes
Toronto, ON
Hello,

What if the court date for a speeding ticket exceeded 12 months, but I never submitted a request for disclosure and thus never received one?

Thanks in advance.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
9749 posts
6137 upvotes
Edmonton
ElectroJay wrote:
Oct 9th, 2018 5:04 pm
Hello,

What if the court date for a speeding ticket exceeded 12 months, but I never submitted a request for disclosure and thus never received one?

Thanks in advance.
Well, first off... If you're hoping to get the ticket thrown out because of the time it took, the current "standard" is 18 months. Second, if you need to ask for a continuance because you didn't ask for disclosure, then the delay at that point would be "charged" to you, and wouldn't count in the 18 months. You can ask for disclosure right at your trial, however. But all that means is that you'll have to come back again.

C
Newbie
Oct 8, 2018
3 posts
Officer position.JPG
Disclosure.jpg
Thank you for the excellent feedback and advice. The photo I supplied is a reenactment of the officer's position. Obviously I wasn't clear earlier about where he was stationed. This new version provides a better demonstration. He was hiding in his SUV behind the tree where the red circle is located. This photo was taken from 40m from where, sitting in the driver's seat, he was invisible yet he claims to have seen me speeding from more than 80m away, the point he locked in his radar. He could not have seen me until I was approx. 25m away which equates to less than one second during which time he hoisted his radar and aimed it towards me as I passed. He was likely using the adjacent radar sign on the hydro pole.

My question is - is it sufficient to use radar at a passing vehicle or must the officer first visually assess that a vehicle is speeding and then use the radar to measure the speed? My case rests on the first option being a requirement.

The relevant section of his disclosure is also attached.
Newbie
Dec 19, 2015
8 posts
1 upvote
Ajax
CNeufeld wrote:
Oct 9th, 2018 4:12 pm
You can give the courthouse a call. They may have the disclosure sitting there waiting for you.

Anything they plan on introducing as evidence has to be disclosed. So if they're going to have both officers there, they have to disclose the statements from both of them.

Aside from that... You may be able to negotiate the ticket down, but it will likely still be a conviction of some kind. I'm not judging, but the simple fact that you were turning left and an oncoming vehicle hit you is about all it takes. The witness (who I'm presuming you have no way of contacting) "reporting" that the other driver was speeding isn't of value unless you can get them to show up, and even if they did, it's not a slam-dunk just because the other car was speeding. It's still your responsibility to make that turn only when safe. And it clearly wasn't safe.

C
Appreciated. The witness who mentioned she was speeding actually reached out on a local Facebook group a few days after the accident and I managed to get in touch with her. She wasn’t sure if she could come to court with me since she had not stuck around to give the police her statement at the time of the accident. So I’m not sure if it would be allowed for her to come to court? I do realize it was my fault as I clearly wasn’t able to clear the intersection in time. You’re right.

Thanks for the info. I’ll give them a call tomorrow.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
9749 posts
6137 upvotes
Edmonton
brian636309644922974000 wrote:
Oct 9th, 2018 7:02 pm
Officer position.JPGDisclosure.jpgThank you for the excellent feedback and advice. The photo I supplied is a reenactment of the officer's position. Obviously I wasn't clear earlier about where he was stationed. This new version provides a better demonstration. He was hiding in his SUV behind the tree where the red circle is located. This photo was taken from 40m from where, sitting in the driver's seat, he was invisible yet he claims to have seen me speeding from more than 80m away, the point he locked in his radar. He could not have seen me until I was approx. 25m away which equates to less than one second during which time he hoisted his radar and aimed it towards me as I passed. He was likely using the adjacent radar sign on the hydro pole.

My question is - is it sufficient to use radar at a passing vehicle or must the officer first visually assess that a vehicle is speeding and then use the radar to measure the speed? My case rests on the first option being a requirement.

The relevant section of his disclosure is also attached.
I'm not an expert, but I don't think there's any law saying he has to have some kind of visual assessment prior to tagging you with the photo radar. You can try arguing that in court, but I think it will be a waste of time. And your photograph doesn't prove anything, since it doesn't show what HE can see from where he was positioned.

Radar traps (including hidden vehicles) aren't illegal in themselves. So I think you're barking up the wrong tree with that defense.

C
Newbie
Oct 8, 2018
1 posts
I got 5 ticket today
1. Not wearing seatbell
2. Speeding 81 in 60 zone
3.drive motor vehicle no currently validated permit reddit
4.drive motor vehicle in contravention of conditions
5.ptc driver, fail to display ptc identifier if approved location
The cop said the last two ticket is for not showing mu uber sticker on the right location. Instead of back windshield, it was on the side of the car.
If i dont have the sticker on my permit, since the lady from registration put on different paper then why i am getting a ticker for it.
How many other points for the other ticket ? What should i do ? Im so scared.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
5308 posts
815 upvotes
Ontario / Quebec
rcmpvet wrote:
Oct 5th, 2018 6:23 pm
I found 3 such places on George St itself. Two of them are metered spots, the signs on both are positioned below the meter head itself, almost at curb level, but there were additional signs posted at the start of those spaces. All are in what appears to be a business section.
That is my point.
I was not aware that I was parking in a handicap spot, I have never done that in 40 years behind the wheel.
I would really like to understand how I could have missed the handicap sign but the ticket does not provide any indication where on George Street North I would have parked so that I can verify it was in fact a handicap spot.
I just tried finding them with google maps but they are a bit hard to spot - the one I found was near 525 George Street North but I don't think that was the spot.
In any case, Peterborough doesn't seem to have any handicap markings on the pavement which is what I'm used to in addition to any signs.

Right now the ticket without a location on George Street north is like someone who broke in at a house on George Street north, the police charges him but they can't identify the house.
George Street north is a pretty long street - it's not a street that is one or two blocks where there is only one handicap spot so it would be pretty obvious.

I wanted to find out from the experts here if a parking ticket without a specific location identified is actually valid. It's like someone getting a ticket in Toronto saying you parked illegally on Younge street.
Gives the date and time but no indication where on Younge Street. I can't believe that this would actually be valid.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
5308 posts
815 upvotes
Ontario / Quebec
CNeufeld wrote:
Oct 9th, 2018 4:12 pm
....it's not a slam-dunk just because the other car was speeding. It's still your responsibility to make that turn only when safe. And it clearly wasn't safe.
I was involved in a similar situation years ago - I had pulled to the centre of the intersection waiting to complete a left turn (going from south to west).
Light turned red - there were three lanes of oncoming traffic, car in the curb lane and the third lane had stopped because their light was red, I completed my left turn when a car came barreling through the red light in the centre lane and hit my car at the back spinning me around.
The fact that this car came through a red light seemed to be irrelevant when it came to the determination of who caused the accident.
I think the other driver got a ticket for going through a red light, I got a ticket for making that turn but the bigger issue was the insurance assigning blame.
Can't remember how that finally ended with them, but if one is involved in an accident when making a left turn across traffic, it seems one is automatically guilty.

In gotaluvme's case, how would one proof the other car was speeding? It doesn't look as if he/she even got a ticket.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 11, 2009
16485 posts
2604 upvotes
Toronto
I have my trial date set for tomorrow, I have not received any disclosure from the prosecutors office. (Brampton - Peel Police offence)

I have also faxed Form 4F to the Attorney Generals and hand delivered it to the prosecutor.

I have mailed the disclosure request twice, once in May, once in June, and then hand delivered it (stamped) in September.

Used the letter in OP - not the official disclosure request form on the Brampton site.

Do I need to take anything else as proof other than copies of all letters, and the september copies stamped received as well as the fax confirms for Attoney General?

Is this an automatic drop of the suit?

The ticket was because I high beamed/flashed the guy in front of me doing 40 in an 80 zone in the left lane (1 flicker) and was ticketed under HTA 168(B)
Use of passing beam
168 When on a highway at any time when lighted lamps are required to be displayed on vehicles, the driver of a motor vehicle equipped with multiple beam headlamps shall use the lower or passing beam when,

(a) approaching an oncoming vehicle within 150 metres; or

(b) following another vehicle within 60 metres, except when in the act of overtaking and passing. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 168.

Top