It IS possible to beat the system!

[nolabel]

Over here in Michigan and many other states the highway deaths deceased when the freeway speed limits were increased. So this blank statement that speed kills is wrong, its the differences in speeds that are a danger more than speed itself.

A few years back some guy on a race track lost control of his race car and crashed in to a wall at 200 mph. The wall shattered and the guy and even his car were not hurt bad at all. Everybody was saying if his car was going only 100 mph mostly likely the wall would not had shattered and he would have been killed. Going super fast on impact saved his live.

I know that has nothing to do with real world driving on the streets, just thought I share that story.

Did you know that murder rates increase in proportion to ice cream consumption? I'm not shitting you. Of course, ice cream consumption increases in the summer time. People like to kill more in the warmer months, apparently, so the ice cream consumption is irrelevant. The point: you've got to keep in mind the distinction between cause and correlation. A decrease in deaths with an increase in freeway speed limit has also been explained by a lower proportion of drivers driving recklessly (which is associated with high proportions of drivers knowingly violating the speed limits). Just complicating things for the fun of it.

Also, physics explains your race track smash. Newton's second law is F=ma (force equals mass times acceleration). The mass of the car, at a lower speed, could not shift the mass of the wall. But the force applied to the wall was increased because of the increase in speed of the vehicle (where it's mass remained constant). So, yeah, going faster saved his life . . . but only because of some other conditions, namely the roll cage in the car being able to withstand the force of the impact (Newton's third law . . . for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). That is, do the same thing in a mini-minor and you are toast!

 

[basketcase]

... They are a blatant tax grab, and I'm totally against them. ...

I am totally for this kind of tax grab. You can live your life on the edge if you want and if it keeps my taxes down, great. Same goes for the new fines on the TTC.

If you follow the law, these tax grabs don't affect you (I'm sure the judge hears the light was yellow defense all the time). If the equipment malfunctioned and you were innocent (not that it sounds that way) I'm glad you got off. If you want to play the system, I hope they increase the fine.

I just hope that your defiance of the law doesn't cause someone to be hurt or destroy public property.

 

[GDLLover]

Over here in Michigan and many other states the highway deaths deceased when the freeway speed limits were increased. So this blank statement that speed kills is wrong, its the differences in speeds that are a danger more than speed itself.

A few years back some guy on a race track lost control of his race car and crashed in to a wall at 200 mph. The wall shattered and the guy and even his car were not hurt bad at all. Everybody was saying if his car was going only 100 mph mostly likely the wall would not had shattered and he would have been killed. Going super fast on impact saved his live.

I know that has nothing to do with real world driving on the streets, just thought I share that story.

You absolutely right, speed doesn't kill, its the poor driving skill and habit of the person driving.

Also this applies to approaching traffic lights, drive the speed thats appropriate and anticipate so that your not entering an intersection on a yellow and all will be safe. Same goes for cars tailgating, they should also anticipate the car in front to avoid a collision.

 

[basketcase]

Red Light cameras increase accidents. People hit the breaks on a yellow light. In adverse weather conditions, braking on yellow can cause you to spin. If anyone is tailgating, accidents ensue ...
...

1) Don't drive recklessly in bad weather.
2) The tailgating would be the cause of the accident, not the driver stopping or the red light camera.

 

[Barca]

some stupid people on this website! you aren't running a red light unless the light has turned red before you enter the intersection. Look at the traffic laws....I'm sure that has NEVER ONCE happen to you in your entire driving career...or you've never gotten a ticket for speeding right? I fuckin HATE people who speed! It causes the majority of accidents! So far I'm counting 3 mindless sheep!

This is true.

I received a ticket once for running a red when in fact I entered the section in a yellow (it was a rainy night and I chose to go through a yellow as opposed to stop). I told my side of the story at trial and the officer could not ensure that I had entered in a red as opposed to a yellow so the judge threw it out.

 

[Garrett]

accident. So stop preaching. Garrett, you've never done anything like litter, throw your smoke on the ground, jay-walk? How would you feel if you got a notice in the mail saying a camera saw you jay-walking and you got a $180 ticket for that? What about tossing yoru smoke on the ground and a camera caught it? Or a camera caught you holding your phone in your hand while driving? Quit preaching about responsibility, because, NO ONE, and I MEAN NO ONE, follows every single one of our laws to a T! If you say otherwise your bullshitting.

I detest people who litter, and I am not dumb enough to smoke... never mind discard lit cigarettes.

What you simply do not get is this is about personal responsibility. Whether I agree with the law or not, if I am guilty, so be it. I would pay the fine. In your case, I have zero doubt you are guilty. You are downplaying your responsibility and in fact turning it into a moral crusade. This is classic weasel behavior.

You need to "man up" sunshine. Be responsible for your actions.

 

[Ref]

"(1) An offence notice issued in a proceeding based on evidence obtained through the use of a red light camera system may be served by sending the offence notice by regular prepaid mail to the person charged within 23 days after the occurrence of the alleged offence. O. Reg. 277/99, s. 4 (1)."

i checked the ticket and the OPP officer took 26 days to certify the picture. I took it into the justice of the peace, and he cancelled the ticket on the spot! I understand that I was in fact quilty of the offence, but it was one of those times when the light turns red as your almost through the intersection..its happened to everyone, so please no bashing about how im a bad driver!

Fight your tickets people!

Excellent research!

I am sure that anyone who has read this thread will remember this and use it to beat a traffic ticket in the event they find themselves in the same situation.

To the dickwads who spewed their "holier than thou" bullshit to Topoon - Get a fucking life! Save your on-line persona character building comments for threads that involve the kissing of an escorts ass...at least I can laugh at you for those posts.

 

[Dewalt]

What happens if you are turning right on a red? Do you still get a ticket?

 

[GDLLover]

I hope to be in court when you say the following...

"Your Honour, I was caught Red Handed in a Bawdy House... I am morally against having a defence for my crime, or any crime for that matter - gimme all ya got. Everyone should own-up to what they do. I don't care if the police screwed-up or if they conducted their investigation illegally based on a technicality, or played loose with evidence - just throw the book at me, please!! Loopholes... don't need em. I'm happy to have a criminal record. It's not like I travel, have a family or need a job. Oh, and if there were drugs, weapons and human trafficking going on in there, please assume that I condone such activities and punish me accordingly. I recognize that Bawdy Houses bring societal ills like this, and I must man-up to it all. "

Yeesh....

This is not the same and you know it. The only way someone here gets hurt phyically is if the guy is disrespectful and gets physical. In the case of running yellow lights, I don't want someone I love getting killed by idots like yourselves.

 

[Ironhead]

I took it into the justice of the peace, and he cancelled the ticket on the spot! I understand that I was in fact quilty of the offence, but it was one of those times when the light turns red as your almost through the intersection..its happened to everyone, so please no bashing about how im a bad driver!

Fight your tickets people!

So as you admit you did commit the offence , but weaseled out via a loop hole.

You are a bad driver.

Hey, if your fine with camera's being placed all around us, and invading your privacy that's fine by me. I'm not, first its the red-light camera, then its the downtown CCTV camera's and eventually they are in our homes! Hey a little extreme but thats how things happen!

Invading privacy ? Was this camera in your house ?

In fact you are a whiney bad driver.

 

[Ironhead]

What happens if you are turning right on a red? Do you still get a ticket?

Why would you. Here in Ontario we are allowed to turn right on a red so long as you obey the rules. Check to see the way is clear of traffic and pedestrians and if it is, away you go legally.

 

[oldjones]

Good for you, bad driver though you may be. The law must be enforced, as it is written, not as the police or some overworked clerical assistant hopes. Otherwise it is oppression, not law.

BUT, you should alter your driving habits. Unless the camera was malfunctioning and taking pictures while the light was green, you should not have been in the intersection. If an amber was ending you should have seen it long ago and started braking, if it was just starting you should have cleared. It may be impossible to prove a driver who entered the intersection on amber 'could have stopped with safety', so no one's ever charged, but the point is no one facing a red light should ever be in the intersection. Anything less is bad, unsafe driving.

 

[GDLLover]

Let's separate-out two issues/streams-of-thought here: 1) Perspective and 2) The Justice System in this country

1) Perspective
Whether or not I feel they are the same, you and I both know that lots of people dislike Bawdy Houses for various reasons. Say in my example I also included finding an underage girl on the premises. Care to argue that no one is hurt or exploited in that situation? That's gotta up the moral ante here to the point where you should give a shit. You want to protect people from "idiots like myself" on the road, fine. I can guarantee that I'll find someone that wants to protect society from "idiots in Bawdy Houses", and we'll just argue perspective until the cows come home. I won't do that, if only to keep some civility on the internet. Let's just assume we're different, but that we see each other's perspective.

2) Justice System
The OP was talking about technicalities in the law and the fact we are entitled to know the law, examine the law, apply the law and hold officers to a standard that enforces the law the way it was meant to be applied for the protection of all Canadians, on both sides of the law. We're also entitled to mount a defence for our actions and ask that charges be reduced - it's called a system of JUSTICE, not a system of TRY 'EM and FRY 'EM. Those are principles I'll stand by. As I said in a previous post, blame the freaking officer who took his sweet time scarfing-down doughnuts and not certifying the photo on time. That's where the problem really is, for if not for his actions, our dear OP would indeed have a suitable punishment, assuming that all other evidence indicates he is guilty (because everyone is also entitled to a fair trial). I hope the officer gets a reprimand. Because of his actions, the OP has no evidence against him, and thus no crime or violation.

Ok, the system isn't perfect nor do I agree completely with it myself.

The bawdy house law of which I don't agree with, was created because police couldn't manage the problems associated with bawdy houses such as pimps, drugs, etc. While in itself is not setup for violent crimes. I will admit it does happen. I think that the problem could be solved by creating legal brothels with a controlled approach.

As far as running yellow lights goes, I really don't care the op got off with not paying the fine, I don't care about the cash grab, if its found a better method to stop people from running yellows then great. Money fines for driving infractions are flawed anyways, it makes the rich not feel its a big deal while maybe over punishing the poor. I think a fine relative to income would be more applicable.

 

[GDLLover]

Let's separate-out two issues/streams-of-thought here: 1) Perspective and 2) The Justice System in this country

1) Perspective
Whether or not I feel they are the same, you and I both know that lots of people dislike Bawdy Houses for various reasons. Say in my example I also included finding an underage girl on the premises. Care to argue that no one is hurt or exploited in that situation? That's gotta up the moral ante here to the point where you should give a shit. You want to protect people from "idiots like myself" on the road, fine. I can guarantee that I'll find someone that wants to protect society from "idiots in Bawdy Houses", and we'll just argue perspective until the cows come home. I won't do that, if only to keep some civility on the internet. Let's just assume we're different, but that we see each other's perspective.

2) Justice System
The OP was talking about technicalities in the law and the fact we are entitled to know the law, examine the law, apply the law and hold officers to a standard that enforces the law the way it was meant to be applied for the protection of all Canadians, on both sides of the law. We're also entitled to mount a defence for our actions and ask that charges be reduced - it's called a system of JUSTICE, not a system of TRY 'EM and FRY 'EM. Those are principles I'll stand by. As I said in a previous post, blame the freaking officer who took his sweet time scarfing-down doughnuts and not certifying the photo on time. That's where the problem really is, for if not for his actions, our dear OP would indeed have a suitable punishment, assuming that all other evidence indicates he is guilty (because everyone is also entitled to a fair trial). I hope the officer gets a reprimand. Because of his actions, the OP has no evidence against him, and thus no crime or violation.

Ok, the system isn't perfect nor do I agree completely with it myself. I do agree with many things you have mentioned but do have the following comments.

The bawdy house law of which I don't agree with, was created because police couldn't manage the problems associated with bawdy houses such as pimps, drugs, etc. While in itself is not setup for violent crimes, I will admit it does happen. I think that the problem could be solved by creating legal brothels with a controlled approach.

As far as running yellow lights goes, I really don't care the op got off with not paying the fine, I don't care about the cash grab, if its found a better method to stop people from running yellows then great. Money fines for driving infractions are flawed anyways, it makes the rich not feel its a big deal while maybe over punishing the poor. I think a fine relative to income would be more applicable.

Its the attitude of yes I can enter a intersection during a yellow thats the problem. I'm going to state the obvious just for those people that really don't know. Yellow is a warning that the red is comming, at the same time the red kicks in one way the green goes the other. So when that kid starts to run across the street because they have a green, little do they realize that guy coming the other way on a yellow is a real danger in which is a problem that must be solved.

Is the red light camera the right tool, maybe or maybe not, but the only alternative would be to have people start respecting the lights or start to enforce it somehow. This has been a consistent problem and has been reduced with the red light cameras, its not perfect but is working.

GDL

 

[topoon]

You obviously don't know how a traffic light works! The green light doesn't flash the same second the red does going the other way. There's a 2-3 second delay. Kids shouldn't be running across the street without looking, anyways, it's only like the very first thing parents teach their kids when their young...."Stop and look both ways before you cross the street" Quit preaching your bullshit...yellow means stop if you have enough time to stop before the white line.. if you're going to end up stopped in the middle of the intersection they tell you to proceed with caution. Any kid that starts crossing the street while my light is still amber is taking their chances, just like they are if they jay walk out from behind a car and get hit, or chase their ball across the street.

 

[GDLLover]

You obviously don't know how a traffic light works! The green light doesn't flash the same second the red does going the other way. There's a 2-3 second delay. Kids shouldn't be running across the street without looking, anyways, it's only like the very first thing parents teach their kids when their young...."Stop and look both ways before you cross the street" Quit preaching your bullshit...yellow means stop if you have enough time to stop before the white line.. if you're going to end up stopped in the middle of the intersection they tell you to proceed with caution. Any kid that starts crossing the street while my light is still amber is taking their chances, just like they are if they jay walk out from behind a car and get hit, or chase their ball across the street.

With the timing of lights your right there are some lights that have a delay but there are also those that immediately change and since you don't know which ones are delayed I stated immediately.

Your also right kids shouldn't be running into a intersection. Problem is they do sometimes. I don't know how I could deal with the fact that I accidentally killed a kid because I didn't stop as I was supposed to, so that I could save 2 to 4 minutes time. I would have a problem seeing the mother of the child break down crying because of my actions. I don't think that it would be any consolation to her that it was her kids fault for not looking and running in the intersection.

Aren't we all human here, and we should try to respect and have some compassion for our fellow human beings.

 

[OddSox]

The red-light camera takes two photographs. The first photo is taken when a vehicle with a red light is about to enter an intersection. The second photograph shows the offending vehicle in the intersection. Both photos show the rear of the offending vehicle only.

If the OP tries to claim that the light was still yellow when he entered the intersection, it should have been easy for him to beat the ticket just by showing the photographs in court. No needs for fancy technicalities.

As a motorcyclist I think the red light runners should be charged under the stunting law...

 

[Dewalt]

Ironhead: What I meant was are the cameras set up to take pics of ALL the cars that are in the intersection during the red light? If so, how can we be sure that the bureaucracy that is in charge of all this tax grab would just find you "guilty" and then make you fight your way through court only to find out you were turning right on a red light?

I imagine they are just hoping people will give up and pay the fine without a fight or checking the pictures etc...

Bureaucracy is a long, grinding machine...maybe they are counting on people capitulating even if they are innocent and just simply don't have the time to fight the ticket in court.

Thoughts?

 

[topoon]

"Your also right kids shouldn't be running into a intersection. Problem is they do sometimes. I don't know how I could deal with the fact that I accidentally killed a kid because I didn't stop as I was supposed to, so that I could save 2 to 4 minutes time. I would have a problem seeing the mother of the child break down crying because of my actions. I don't think that it would be any consolation to her that it was her kids fault for not looking and running in the intersection."

I would feel bad that i accidently killed a kid sure, but if it wasn't my fault then there's nothing i can do about it...if your driving down a toronto city street doing 60 in a 50 and a kid walks out from behind a car and you kill them, your going to feel bad because your car killed them. You're not going to be thinking " damn if i was only going 50 instead of 60 i might have been able to stop in time. Roadways are dangerous places, for pedestrians, especially if they aren't paying attention to the cars around them.

Don't you feel the mother's of the ladies on this board would feel the same way if they found out you were paying their daughters to fuck? I bet you don't think about contributing to that do you?

In regards to the above point, your damn right they hope that you won't fight it and just pay up. That's why there are no demerit points associated with it. Just a fine. Most people will realize that their driving record wont be altered and its just easier to pay the $180 then take a day off work and fight it. Regardless of whether they are guilty or not. That is exactly how traffic court works. Most people are suckers, and pay any ticket they get right away. When you go to traffic court, outside the court room is a prosecutor, who offers EVERYBODY a reduced charge with less demerit points and a lower fine. They don't want to have to prove every ticket because it is just too time consuming. So they offer a deal whereby you can walk away feeling like you "won" and they don't even have to try you.

 

[basketcase]

... Most people will realize that their driving record wont be altered and its just easier to pay the $180 then take a day off work and fight it. ....

Fine by me. Let them keep paying to keep my taxes down. That money covers the cost of the idiots wasting court time to try an fight a ticket that they clearly deserved. I'd like it better if the judge would assign an additional fine to people who waste the court's time.


p.s. GDL, in Ontario, (and everywhere I've been in Canada) all lights have a delay.