Speed Camera Tickets... Can They Be Beat In Court?

[Tram Common]

I got a speed camera ticket for $150 bucks...

It was a green light speed camera.

I want to fight it, I just enjoy being in court, maybe it's because I've taken a few criminal justice courses... who knows.

Anyways, has anyone beaten their speed camera ticket before in court?

Does the whole, "I wasn't driving" line work?

I mean, the onus is on them to prove it was me who was speeding, but how can they prove I was driving at that day and time when no officer pulled me over?

I mean, they can't prove it was me... so does that mean it's an instant win if I take it to court or is there some provincial statute that says I'm responsible for the fine as the owner regardless?

Thanks for the input.

[Type_S1]

No...you have to pay it.

It doesn't matter if it is you driving or not for these I believe it is your responsibilty for the car.

[black13]

Curious about this as well. Never gotten one of these so I'm not sure but I doubt that excuse will work that easily.

I'm guessing they will say something like registered owner of vehicle is responsible for letting the person speed and has to pay.

[Tram Common]

Well, it would be nice to see the provincial statute they will use to apply this "registered owners responsibility" claim... because insurance doesn't work that way in extreme circumstances such as your vehicle being stolen.

I wonder how they can force the onus onto me to prove to them I wasn't driving or that my car was stolen for example.

Does anyone know the statute?

[v2kai]

don't know the statute, but that's why it is only a fine and not demerits. They cannot prove it was you, hence no demerits are deducted from your license however it is registered to you so you are being fined as the owner of the vehicle. And if it wasn't you, I suspect the judge would just fine you and tell you to get the 'real' driver to pay you back.

interesting to see the outcome if you really wanna try, but in this case I'd say just pay it and be done with it.

[[Yu]]

Originally posted by Tram Common
Well, it would be nice to see the provincial statute they will use to apply this "registered owners responsibility" claim... because insurance doesn't work that way in extreme circumstances such as your vehicle being stolen.



I don't know how well the "stolen" argument is going to work. So what are you going to tell the judge on that part?

"Someone stole my car and returned it, your Honor, and now I have this ticket which I know is not mine"

[Tram Common]

I'm going to fight it regardless and see what happens.

I'm going to just ask the crown to prove it was I that was driving and see what statute they pull.

Then I'll likely claim something ridiculous like "Ninja's forced me to register my vehicle and I should therefor be exempt from any speed fines that are attributed to it" ... and be asked to leave the courtroom.

No one here has tried to fight one of these tickets before?

Weird.

[[Yu]]

haha, thats hilarious. But yea I have not gotten one of these tickets, so I haven't even been presented the opportunity to fight it.

I, like everyone else is curious on the outcome man.

Best of Luck.

[HHURICANE1]

You won't win. It's been tried before. It is the car that has been ticketed and you as the registered owner are responsible for the vehicle regardless of who was driving. Unless you can prove it was stolen at the time (police report) you're screwed.

[Tram Common]

Originally posted by HHURICANE1
You won't win. It's been tried before. It is the car that has been ticketed and you as the registered owner are responsible for the vehicle regardless of who was driving. Unless you can prove it was stolen at the time (police report) you're screwed.

Again, since when is the onus on me to prove anything?

We don't live in Germany.

"Can crown prove that my vehicle was not stolen at the time of this offense?" ...will be my first question.

If not, then how can I be found guilty in a court of law for it?

[lellowrx7]

if they let that slip then everyone will use it and then eventually they will come to realize theyve wasted millions on those cameras because everyones cars are getting stolen then the pictures are being taken.

i have my doubts but best of luck anyway

[masoncgy]

LOL...

That's totally not how it works, dude. It's your car. You're responsible for insuring it, knowing who is driving it, and ensuring that it is being operated within the laws that exist.

Your car was captured breaking the law. I'm sure that 9 times out of 10, the owner is driving it when such infractions occur. The 1 time it isn't you doesn't matter, it's still your car and you're responsible for it.

If it was your buddy driving or someone else, make them pay for it.

[Tram Common]

Originally posted by masoncgy
LOL...

That's totally not how it works, dude. It's your car. You're responsible for insuring it, knowing who is driving it, and ensuring that it is being operated within the laws that exist.

Your car was captured breaking the law. I'm sure that 9 times out of 10, the owner is driving it when such infractions occur. The 1 time it isn't you doesn't matter, it's still your car and you're responsible for it.

If it was your buddy driving or someone else, make them pay for it.

Actually that's exactly how our court system works here in Canada... but I'm sure it's above you to understand that so I'm not even going to address your comment.

Also, lellowrx7, you would be surprised at the success rate of convictions for traffic offenses that are taken all the way to court.

Failure to stop at a stop sign has something like a 20% conviction rate last I checked...

... so, not one time out of ten, two times out of ten... but still.

Our court system is a lot more open than we "law abiding" citizens think it is... Police and Gov't's often rely on our compliance as citizens to not take things to court and fight for our rights.

I'm not saying this will be a successful court appearance of mine... but I've been four times for traffic offenses before and have yet to be found guilty.

... this might just be the one though. :P

[Tram Common]

Ok, so this can totally be fought and won:

160(1) If a vehicle is involved in an offence referred to in section
157 or a bylaw, the owner of that vehicle is guilty of an offence.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the owner of the vehicle
satisfies the court that, at the time that the vehicle was involved in
an offence referred to in section 157 or a bylaw,
(a) in the case of a vehicle that was in motion,
(i) the owner of the vehicle was not driving the vehicle,
and
(ii) no other person was driving the vehicle with the
owner’s expressed or implied consent

So, I will have to satisfy the court that I was not driving that day.

I wonder if I will though, I'm going to start, like I said, by asking them to prove it.

After all this isn't indictable... it's not as though a witness can be brought in.

I'm confident... I'll be sure to keep you all informed.

[Tram Common]

I also just saw this which might come in handy for anyone else who is charged under Section 160:

Dismissal of charge 161 Where a person is charged with an offence under this Act or a bylaw, the court trying the case may dismiss the charge if the person satisfies the court that the offence could not have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable care or precaution.

[wintonyk]

you defence reminds me of this guy

Gorilla Speeder (http://jalopnik.com/5355617/man-avoids-37-speed-camera-tickets-by-wearing-monkey-mask)

[luxor]

Originally posted by Tram Common
Ok, so this can totally be fought and won:

160(1) If a vehicle is involved in an offence referred to in section
157 or a bylaw, the owner of that vehicle is guilty of an offence.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the owner of the vehicle
satisfies the court that, at the time that the vehicle was involved in
an offence referred to in section 157 or a bylaw,
(a) in the case of a vehicle that was in motion,
(i) the owner of the vehicle was not driving the vehicle,
and
(ii) no other person was driving the vehicle with the
owner’s expressed or implied consent

So, I will have to satisfy the court that I was not driving that day.

I wonder if I will though, I'm going to start, like I said, by asking them to prove it.

After all this isn't indictable... it's not as though a witness can be brought in.

I'm confident... I'll be sure to keep you all informed.

Oh really? You think you will satisfy the court but just telling them it wasn't you and that they need to prove that it wasn't you driving that day? No my friend, they just proved that the motor vehicle and license plate registered to you had committed an offense and now it's up to YOU to prove that it wasn't you, along with who it really was.



Originally posted by Tram Common
I also just saw this which might come in handy for anyone else who is charged under Section 160:

Dismissal of charge 161 Where a person is charged with an offence under this Act or a bylaw, the court trying the case may dismiss the charge if the person satisfies the court that the offence could not have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable care or precaution.

Yes you couldn't avoid speeding through that intersection with reasonable care or precaution. Just tell them it was the drugs, that's believable.

[Kennyredline]

Originally posted by Tram Common


Again, since when is the onus on me to prove anything?

We don't live in Germany.

"Can crown prove that my vehicle was not stolen at the time of this offense?" ...will be my first question.

If not, then how can I be found guilty in a court of law for it?
I hate people like you. You know why there are so many traffic fatalities? Because of people just like you; who clog up the courts system with bullshit excuses and flat out lies to get out of a ticket you obviously deserve from fucking speeding. People that really deserve to get pulled over and have their licenses taken away don't get pulled over because the courts are already clogged with people like you. You come across like a smug arrogant little prick, and you probably think the court is your little playground hey, 'cause you've taken "some courses" so you're going to show everybody what a smart cookie you are, right?
PAY YOUR FUCKING TICKET.

[calgary403]

Originally posted by Tram Common
I also just saw this which might come in handy for anyone else who is charged under Section 160:

Dismissal of charge 161 Where a person is charged with an offence under this Act or a bylaw, the court trying the case may dismiss the charge if the person satisfies the court that the offence could not have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable care or precaution.

Maybe try the gangster rap made me do it defense?

[msommers]

Just ask to get it reduced. I've gotten photo radars chopped in half. I literally said to the JotP... I want to see if I can get this reduced. Next line up, go in, they offer you a reduction and bam, go pay to your own teller.

[Modelexis]

Ask to confront your accuser and site the statue that states that you have the right to confront that who has accused you of the crime. (ie, the camera lens)

lol

I saw a video of someone in the states trying that. It didn't go well...

Edit, Since canada doesn't recognize this right:

try this one:

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

a fair hearing in regards to a camera ticket should allow a fair chance to prove your innocence.

[Tram Common]

@luxor, re-read what I said

To help you out I said, "I wonder if I will though." Meaning I'm unsure if I will have to satisfy the court or not. So, why you assume I said, "I don't have to satisfy shiiiit bitches." ... is beyond me.

@Kennyredline, ... and I hate people like you who suck the systems perpetual dick non-stop because they have some sort of warped sense of right and wrong.

If it wasn't for people like you police wouldn't fuck around with our rights as citizens so much because they'd have to answer to someone and actually learn to stay within their limit... but they don't because they know people like you will just take it in the ass and be on their way.

Sorry, the gov't offers me a chance to defend myself in a court of law, and I'll take that chance. Whether I do or don't has nothing to do with traffic fatalities you fucking idiot.

If someone dies in a car accident it's not basic traffic court anyways when it gets to that level, it's a different system that has nothing to do with one million people wanting to fight a basic traffic violation.

Maybe you should take a class so you quit coming across like a fucking moron.

I come across like some arrogant prick for taking classes to learn my rights as a citizen of Canada... ya, what kind of an arrogant ass does that?

Get the fuck out of my thread you troll.

[maxomilll]

Originally posted by Kennyredline

I hate people like you. You know why there are so many traffic fatalities? Because of people just like you; who clog up the courts system with bullshit excuses and flat out lies to get out of a ticket you obviously deserve from fucking speeding. People that really deserve to get pulled over and have their licenses takes away don't get pulled over because the courts are already clogged with people like you. You come across like a smug arrogant little prick, and you probably think the court is your little playground hey, 'cause you've taken "some courses" so you're going to show everybody what a smart cookie you are, right?
PAY YOUR FUCKING TICKET.


lol, so many traffic fatalities because the courts are clogged up?

as if bro! :rofl:

[masoncgy]

Originally posted by luxor
No my friend, they just proved that the motor vehicle and license plate registered to you had committed an offense and now it's up to YOU to prove that it wasn't you

Bingo. You own the vehicle, therefore you're responsible for that ticket regardless of who the fuck was driving it.

It's pretty basic. How you can turn something so simple into such a huge steaming pile of shit is beyond me.

Oh, good luck in court. :thumbsup:

[Tram Common]

No shit... what an idiot.

I'm not going to reduce the ticket. I'm aware they do that. I forget what that's called... it's like a little mini court room to see if they can convince you one last time to not go to the real court.

I don't mind losing this fight... I just want to see if it can be beat. I personally think speed cameras are a huge invasion of privacy and I don't agree with them... which is why they're still a hot topic and not implemented in many countries.

As for the guy in the monkey mask... just awesome. :rofl:


Originally posted by masoncgy


Bingo. You own the vehicle, therefore you're responsible for that ticket regardless of who the fuck was driving it.

It's pretty basic. How you can turn something so simple into such a huge steaming pile of shit is beyond me.

Oh, good luck in court. :thumbsup:

It's called your basic rights as a citizen. Definitely a huge pile of shit.

... and thanks.

... also, read the statute I cited... you're wrong. I'm not responsible if someone else was driving the vehicle.

[TYMSMNY]

So, you're gonna say that your car was stolen and therefore you don't need to pay the ticket? You'll need to prove that it was stolen in the first place.

You should probably spend all this time and effort into something more productive and pay the fine. You knew you were speeding yet think you're above the law.

[Tram Common]

Originally posted by TYMSMNY
So, you're gonna say that your car was stolen and therefore you don't need to pay the ticket? You'll need to prove that it was stolen in the first place.

You should probably spend all this time and effort into something more productive and pay the fine. You knew you were speeding yet think you're above the law.

Since when in this thread have I once said I was speeding?

Are you all this fucking stupid? Read the posts!

I don't have to prove anything in a court of law! The onus is on the crown to prove it! Have non of you ever been in court?

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by Kennyredline
Because of people just like you; who clog up the courts system with bullshit excuses and flat out lies to get out of a ticket you obviously deserve from fucking speeding.

You have no grounds to tell anyone what they can and cannot do to fight a ticket.

Being guilty of a crime does not require that you confess to something you are accused of.
Just ask every cop that has been caught drinking and driving.
That's clogging up the courts, not the OP that is fighting a scam that robs people of their money like a pirate.

OP: I would ask the court to prove that the picture they sent you was taken by that camera and not a digital fake used to frame you.
I would have them prove what camera it came out of and call up everyone that has come in contact with the photo, and the sender, and the sending company, and the mail delivery person to confirm it wasn't tampered with.
Prove that that specific camera took the picture.

[Tram Common]

Originally posted by Modelexis


You have no grounds to tell anyone what they can and cannot do to fight a ticket.

Being guilty of a crime does not require that you confess to something you are accused of.
Just ask every cop that has been caught drinking and driving.
That's clogging up the courts, not the OP that is fighting a scam that robs people of their money like a pirate.

Thank you. I was beginning to think everyone on here is just ok with bending over and taking it in the ass.

It is a fucking scam, I can't stand the idea of speed cameras.

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by Tram Common
Ok, so this can totally be fought and won:

160(1) If a vehicle is involved in an offence referred to in section
157 or a bylaw, the owner of that vehicle is guilty of an offence.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the owner of the vehicle
satisfies the court that, at the time that the vehicle was involved in
an offence referred to in section 157 or a bylaw,
(a) in the case of a vehicle that was in motion,
(i) the owner of the vehicle was not driving the vehicle,
and
(ii) no other person was driving the vehicle with the
owner’s expressed or implied consent

So, I will have to satisfy the court that I was not driving that day.


You need to satisfy both elements; (a) that you weren't driving, and (or) (b) that your car was being driven without your consent. This means that your car has to be stolen, missing, or similar to qualify under this statute.

[Tram Common]

100% false. Driven without my consent could just mean my sister took it without me knowing or allowing her.

It wouldn't classify as stolen. It would just be without my consent.

If the statute meant it had to be stolen it would read "vehicle was stolen" ... similar can mean many things.

[zieg]

speed camera tickets are sent to the registered owner.

:closed:

[Tram Common]

Originally posted by ZiG-87
speed camera tickets are sent to the registered owner.

:closed:

Thanks tips, now read the title and contribute to the discussion at hand or kindly leave.

[masoncgy]

You need to brush up on the Alberta Traffic Safety Act, which states that as long as you are the registered owner of a vehicle that is caught speeding, the ticket belongs to you.

That's why photo radar exists in the province, genius. It's completely within the boundaries of our existing traffic laws! :poosie:

They don't need to prove intent, they only need to prove the violation was committed... *click*

...but please, waste the court's time instead, since apparently you have a leg up on the law. :rofl:

[Tram Common]

Originally posted by masoncgy
You need to brush up on the Alberta Traffic Safety Act, which states that as long as you are the registered owner of a vehicle that is caught speeding, the ticket belongs to you.

That's why photo radar exists in the province, genius. It's completely within the boundaries of our existing traffic laws! :poosie:

They don't need to prove intent, they only need to prove the violation was committed... *click*

...but please, waste the court's time instead, since apparently you have a leg up on the law. :rofl:


Umm... I think you need to brush up on your reading skills... this is taken directly from the Alberta Traffic Safety Act:

160(1) If a vehicle is involved in an offence referred to in section
157 or a bylaw, the owner of that vehicle is guilty of an offence.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the owner of the vehicle
satisfies the court that, at the time that the vehicle was involved in
an offence referred to in section 157 or a bylaw,
(a) in the case of a vehicle that was in motion,
(i) the owner of the vehicle was not driving the vehicle,
and
(ii) no other person was driving the vehicle with the
owner’s expressed or implied consent

... also, where did I say they have to prove intent? :dunno:

[maxomilll]

Originally posted by ZiG-87
speed camera tickets are sent to the registered owner.

:closed:

I don't understand this attitude, and negative flack everyones giving the OP. Why can't he fight the ticket without abuse? It's his right.

How does ''speed camera tickets are sent to the registered owner'' make it the absolute?

Just because it's sent to the owner of the vehicle doesn't close the discussion. This isn't a police state, what the government says is not always the absolute right way of doing things.




anyway power to you. Best of luck, this is going to be interesting to see how it turns out.

[Tram Common]

Thanks maxomill, the reason this is turning into a gong show is because 90% of Beyond's members have likely paid one of these tickets before and because they paid it and didn't fight it they would rather see others fail at fighting it than succeed.

This thread is over. You'll all just have to wait and see how it goes.

I'll update you all in 6 - 10 months when I go in.

[calgary403]

Originally posted by Modelexis


You have no grounds to tell anyone what they can and cannot do to fight a ticket.

Being guilty of a crime does not require that you confess to something you are accused of.
Just ask every cop that has been caught drinking and driving.
That's clogging up the courts, not the OP that is fighting a scam that robs people of their money like a pirate.

OP: I would ask the court to prove that the picture they sent you was taken by that camera and not a digital fake used to frame you.
I would have them prove what camera it came out of and call up everyone that has come in contact with the photo, and the sender, and the sending company, and the mail delivery person to confirm it wasn't tampered with.
Prove that that specific camera took the picture.

:clap: :clap:

I also think you should go and fight the ticket. Photo radar cameras are bullshit. It is your right to fight it so you should exorcise that right.

When are you going to set your court date? Please update and tell us how it works out.

[Kennyredline]

Originally posted by Tram Common


Thanks tips, now read the title and contribute to the discussion at hand or kindly leave.
Buddy, STFU and stop trying to make a yourself look intelligent; I'm not the only one that thinks your a dick.

[FraserB]

A friend tried to fight one of these as his mother was driving his car at the time. He ended up having to pay the entire fine. It is impossible to have a camera ticket dismissed since they have a picture of you breaking the law, unless you can show the camera was not working properly.

He was told that since they can't prove who the driver was at the time, the ticket is sent to the owner, who is responsible for the vehicle at all times. It is them up to the owner of the vehicle to pay the fine and then collect the funds from the second party if they were not in possession of the vehicle at the time. Arguing that the car could have been stolen is not going to work, they will ask you to produce a police report for said theft.

If the car was taken without your permission by a friend or family member and you didnt report it stolen, you pay the fine then get the money from them. It will not affect either driving record since no demerits are assigned.

[Pollywog]

Originally posted by Kennyredline

I hate people like you. You know why there are so many traffic fatalities? Because of people just like you; who clog up the courts system with bullshit excuses and flat out lies to get out of a ticket you obviously deserve from fucking speeding. People that really deserve to get pulled over and have their licenses takes away don't get pulled over because the courts are already clogged with people like you. You come across like a smug arrogant little prick, and you probably think the court is your little playground hey, 'cause you've taken "some courses" so you're going to show everybody what a smart cookie you are, right?
PAY YOUR FUCKING TICKET.

Agreed, this thread is absolutely moronic.

http://tkach-law.com/files/officer_w_cap_writing_ticket_250h.jpg

Just pay your ticket you clown. You come on here and admit you are at fault, while at the same time admitting that you are wasting all of our tax dollars as well as the courts time because you're too much of a cheap ignorant bitch to step up and pay the price. Get fucked.

[masoncgy]

Originally posted by Tram Common
... also, where did I say they have to prove intent?

So when you said...

Originally posted by Tram Common
The onus is on the crown to prove it!

The crown already 'proved' your vehicle was caught in violation of the law with photographic evidence, and that's all they need to do.

You falsely believe that the crown must prove it was you who was driving. They don't. It's not a criminal matter where they have to prove intent on your part.

You're a fool for sitting here going on like you're some kind of super genius. Do you honestly think the Alberta government would have been forking out all of those tickets for all of these years if they didn't have the full, legal means to do so?

:rofl:

Really. Come on now, grab a clue! Pay your fucking ticket and quit with the semantics.

:whocares:

[Kennyredline]

Originally posted by Tram Common
Thanks maxomill, the reason this is turning into a gong show is because 90% of Beyond's members have likely paid one of these tickets before and because they paid it and didn't fight it they are people with much more integrity than me, and know they broke the law, and they dutifully paid the fine, instead of being a whiny little bitch like me.
This thread is over. You'll all just have to wait and see how it goes.

I'll update you all in 6 - 10 months when I go in.
Fixed.

[Pollywog]

Originally posted by Tram Common
I mean, they can't prove it was me... so does that mean it's an instant win[...]?
Yea, instant. Boy I wish everyone knew it was that simple.


Originally posted by Tram Common
@Kennyredline, ...

Maybe you should take a class so you quit coming across like a fucking moron.
If you're such a justice expert, then why are you here making an ass out of yourself by asking ridiculous questions?


Originally posted by Tram Common
It is a fucking scam, I can't stand the idea of speed cameras. Speeding is against the law - simple. Don't speed and you won't get tickets.

[Cooked Rice]

I got one a couple weeks ago. I don't believe it's up to the crown. It says on the ticket itself. Plead guilty and "make submissions as to penalty and the justice may grant time" which i'm pretty sure is asking them to cut you a deal (reduce the fine). Or plead not guilty and they set a trial date for you. I dunno I would personally just plead guilty and ask if they could cut you a deal if you've had a pretty clean driving record.

[Tram Common]

I created this thread to see if anyone had fought one of these tickets and won.

I never once said I was driving the car, I simply said I received the ticket.

Do I think the gov't would be handing out these tickets all this time if they technically couldn't?

Yes, yes I do. Look at the conviction rates of Alberta Traffic violations ion the court records if you want proof that the Alberta gov't hands out tickets for things they know they will lose in court 80% of the time.

masoncgy, are you not reading the statutes I've re-posted like ten times now.

It doesn't matter the ticket was sent to me, it can still be fought, nothing is "proven" yet.

Also, the onus is always on the court... a little something called "innocent until proven guilty" that applies to all courts... even lowly traffic violation courts.

Pollywog, if this thread is so moronic why did you come in to comment? Gotta keep that 1.81 posts a day average up don't you you fucking prick?

[Pollywog]

Originally posted by Tram Common
I never once said I was driving the car, I simply said I received the ticket.


You never once mentioned someone else was driving, yet ask everyone if you can just "say" someone else was driving. It doesn't take a playschool-justice expert like yourself to see through your bullshit.

http://joeatgvo.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/clown.jpg

[FraserB]

Did you read my post? "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply here since they have already proven that the vehicle was committing an offense. They can never prove it was you specifically driving, so they ticket the person who is responsible for that vehicle, the registered owner. If you are the registered owner and lent it out to a friend who got the ticket, get him to give you the money. These tickets don't hurt your driving record.

[Pollywog]

Originally posted by FraserB
Did you read my post? "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply here since they have already proven that the vehicle was committing an offense. They can never prove it was you specifically driving, so they ticket the person who is responsible for that vehicle, the registered owner. If you are the registered owner and lent it out to a friend who got the ticket, get him to give you the money. These tickets don't hurt your driving record. Wow, and you'd think a justice expert like Tram would know to read thoroughly rather than selectively! :facepalm:


Originally posted by Tram Common
Thanks for the input. Anytime buddy, that's what we're here for.

[Tram Common]

Originally posted by FraserB
Did you read my post? "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply here since they have already proven that the vehicle was committing an offense. They can never prove it was you specifically driving, so they ticket the person who is responsible for that vehicle, the registered owner. If you are the registered owner and lent it out to a friend who got the ticket, get him to give you the money. These tickets don't hurt your driving record.

I'm aware they don't hurt my driving record but I'm sorry, I just don't see the justice in how the gov't can give me a ticket for something I potentially didn't do...

... and their proof is, "It's your vehicle, deal with it."

Fuck that... I'm going to fight it the best I can and see how it goes.

At least then I can say I stood up for this injustice rather than cowering like a bitch.

If it comes down to me having to pay it... I'll pay it... but only after I've exercised all my rights.

[FraserB]

This is why we need a system like the states, if you go to court and fight a ticket and lose, they tack on a crapload of additional fees to the ticket.

:facepalm:

[Pollywog]

Originally posted by Tram Common
I'm aware they don't hurt my driving record but I'm sorry, I just don't see the justice in how the gov't can give me a ticket for something I potentially didn't do...

... and their proof is, "It's your vehicle, deal with it."


They are ticketing your car and it's registered owner, not you personally. You are responsible for your car - where its parked, where it drives, who drives it, etc. Unless the car was reported stolen to the police, there is no valid reason to quash your ticket.

Are you sure you took a Justice course?

[masoncgy]

Originally posted by Tram Common
masoncgy, are you not reading the statutes I've re-posted like ten times now.

Dude, that's the thing. You're a completely ignorant fool when it comes to our photo radar laws.

Your regurgitated lines about the statutes, by the way, are pointless. The government only needs to capture your vehicle breaking the law... that's it. They don't need to prove anything else. That's why photo radar is here... because it can function 100% legitimately within the current laws.

If you think anything otherwise, you're an idiot. Period.

You have the right to contest the violation because there could be rare circumstances that weigh in... like the car being stolen at the time. Those circumstances, however, are few and far between.

Wow... three pages of shit over absolutely nothing.

[maxomilll]

lol at pollywog's obnoxious clown picture rebuttal. Your arguing intelligence and you basically just stuck your tongue out at OPs face to prove your point. The plain ignorance of it, made me laugh.

FraserB, We shouldn't have a justice system like the states.
We should be able to fight a bullshit law enforced on us with our or consent without having to pay MORE penalties on top of the already bullshit penalties being received by the apparent ''unlawful'' act.

But shit. Your going to disagree with me anyway because I guess it's a matter of opinion.

[Pollywog]

Originally posted by maxomilll
We should be able to fight a bullshit law enforced on us with our or consent without having to pay MORE penalties on top of the already bullshit penalties being received by the apparent ''unlawful'' act.


Are you really as thick as you come across as, or do you actually think speeding is not an unlawful act - or in your words, a "bullshit penalty"?

The funniest part of it all is you two clowns provided a whole nights-worth of humor for the other 99% of us. Thanks!

:thumbsup:

[dandia89]

this thread just goes in circles. it's pretty entertaining

[kevie88]

If Nazi's came to power in Canada this next election, I truly believe 50% of beyond members would run down the street and kill the Goldsteins, just because the government said it's the right thing to do.

Speed Cameras are wrong. Having a robot enforcing the 'law' is wrong.

[maxomilll]

No worries bro! ;)


''Unlawful'' In the since I feel it should be open the discretion.
Say an individual is driving down an empty three lane highway such as our 16th ave, and is cursing a mer 15 over. If there is a physical officer there, for the most part, and if the individual was driving reasonably, they will give you a warning if pull you over at all.

But a camera different story. BOOM ticket. Without question or reason. It's a computer so all it knows is that the individual was doing something it's programed not to permit.

Now, how is cruising safely on an empty road considered unlawful? To me it seems like bullshit. In no way is it worth a punishment and robbery of my time. IMO.

I just firmly believe we as citizens should have the right to a trail, without being punished for using that right.

And pollywog, man, why all the personal insults. Why does the disagreement of your ideas to mine, make me thick?

I can think what I want dude:poosie:

[Pollywog]

Originally posted by maxomilll
And pollywog, man, why all the personal insults. Why does the disagreement of your ideas to mine, make me thick?

Disagreement? Your statements were purely illogical, and you've been around here long enough to know that I attack stupidity like the plague. On a side note, I find it equally depressing that people such as yourself and the OP exist, especially in a society that already has enough issues with a completely ignorant "me-me-me" young-generation. Take it as you will, but rather than attacking you personally I was intending to attack stupid people in general.

Off to London tomorrow, so thanks for the laughs and goodnight! :D

[dirtsniffer]

Originally posted by kevie88
If Nazi's came to power in Canada this next election, I truly believe 50% of beyond members would run down the street and kill the Goldsteins, just because the government said it's the right thing to do.

Speed Cameras are wrong. Having a robot enforcing the 'law' is wrong.

I agree, they tried to introduce photo radar in bc and in got destroyed because of public outcry. this should be a topic for the next provincial election

[msommers]

Tram,

Were you driving the vehicle when the photo was taken?

Moreover, I'm also lost in terms of what you expect the crown to produce to prove the vehicle was speeding, it was or was not you, it's not your problem...whatever. Regardless, the person wasn't ticketed, the vehicle was. I'm not understanding how there is injustice here. Can you expand on this for me please?

Lastly, why is photo radar banned in other provinces vs. here in Alberta? Legally, what was the justification to squash it?

[Disoblige]

Originally posted by Tram Common
Thanks maxomill, the reason this is turning into a gong show is because 90% of Beyond's members have likely paid one of these tickets before and because they paid it and didn't fight it they would rather see others fail at fighting it than succeed.

This thread is over. You'll all just have to wait and see how it goes.

I'll update you all in 6 - 10 months when I go in.
Sorry Tram Common,

But unless you have a valid argument, you will not win. I will guarantee this. How? Because I have enough experience with the traffic court system and speak with employees of the Calgary Court Center almost on a daily basis. Since you weren't even pulled over, you won't get away with "the cop not showing up" card. You will have to present some sort of case. The court will not accept any "What-if" scenarios and send you on your way if you do. The only thing that matters is what YOU did. And hopefully you don't lie in court because I seen so many kids get fucked because they're lying idiots. Photo radar and speed on green have been here for ages (speed on green using same concept as Photo radar but MUCH more visible), I'm surprised that there are still people who are unaware that unless your car was stolen (and not hypothetical what-if's), the ticket stands and you would be caught red-handed. Good luck, I hope you revive this thread in 6-10 months and tell us how it goes. I would be really interested in knowing if you really did get away with this ticket.

The only thing I find distasteful is thorough the thread, you feel that the only reason people argue with you is because they either received a Speed-on-Green ticket and was "cowering like a bitch" to fight it or something along the lines of that. You do give that "holier-than-thou" attitude. The point is, you were caught. As a driver, it is your responsibility to know the rules of the road. You sped, and as much as we all KNOW the city is out to take your money, you just have to be one step ahead of them. When you DO get caught, you can't blame anyone but yourself. Honestly, if I do get a ticket myself, I would just be saying "Awww.. You got me.. Yeah you did..".. Because really you can get away with almost anything if you are smart about it. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Don't get me wrong, I'm ALL for fighting tickets, legitimately or not because I LOVE beating the system. But sometimes you just have to pay up, and in this instance you are better off doing that. If you received a traffic ticket with demerits let's say, then you have so much more possibilities like getting it reduced to no demerits by changing it to a Speed-on-green ticket, getting it thrown out by no cops showing up, or something. But you already received a low-end ticket, so the system got you this time.

[Tram Common]

Pollywog, you're just a joke man... and I've met you in real life... you're not half as arrogant there as you are online... and you claim you're attacking stupid people like you're all righteous... you're the problem with Beyond, you're the reason half the legitimate car enthusiasts in this city avoid Beyond like the plague.

Grow the fuck up and leave your two cents at the door... nobody wants them.

Also, this IS just going in circles now. I'm going to fight this and see how it goes... because it's my right as a citizen, not because I'm some idiot. If you see it otherwise, well, that's you're two cents and I don't really need you coming into this post to simply tell me them.

The title doesn't say, "I got a speeding ticket, think I can win?"

It says, "Speed Camera Tickets... Can They Be Beat In Court?"

I never once said it was a sure thing that I'll beat the ticket. In-fact, I've hinted many times that I doubt I will beat it... it's the principal of the matter to me.

Fuck, enough of this... I'm off to sleep. I'll let you all know how it goes.

[TYMSMNY]

Originally posted by Tram Common


Since when in this thread have I once said I was speeding?

Are you all this fucking stupid? Read the posts!

I don't have to prove anything in a court of law! The onus is on the crown to prove it! Have non of you ever been in court?

"I got a speed camera ticket for $150 bucks..." OP

"It was a green light speed camera." OP

:facepalm: What do you think a speed camera ticket is for... tinted windows?

edit: to add, it is YOUR onus to prove to the court system that your car was being used illegally and therefore you, being the registered owner, should not pay it. Being the registered owner of the car makes you responsible for its actions and being caught in the act by a camera, makes it your ticket.

[Tram Common]

Originally posted by Disoblige

Sorry Tram Common,

But unless you have a valid argument, you will not win. I will guarantee this. How? Because I have enough experience with the traffic court system and speak with employees of the Calgary Court Center almost on a daily basis. Since you weren't even pulled over, you won't get away with "the cop not showing up" card. You will have to present some sort of case. The court will not accept any "What-if" scenarios and send you on your way if you do. The only thing that matters is what YOU did. And hopefully you don't lie in court because I seen so many kids get fucked because they're lying idiots. Photo radar and speed on green have been here for ages (speed on green using same concept as Photo radar but MUCH more visible), I'm surprised that there are still people who are unaware that unless your car was stolen (and not hypothetical what-if's), the ticket stands and you would be caught red-handed. Good luck, I hope you revive this thread in 6-10 months and tell us how it goes. I would be really interested in knowing if you really did get away with this ticket.

The only thing I find distasteful is thorough the thread, you feel that the only reason people argue with you is because they either received a Speed-on-Green ticket and was "cowering like a bitch" to fight it or something along the lines of that. You do give that "holier-than-thou" attitude. The point is, you were caught. As a driver, it is your responsibility to know the rules of the road. You sped, and as much as we all KNOW the city is out to take your money, you just have to be one step ahead of them. When you DO get caught, you can't blame anyone but yourself. Honestly, if I do get a ticket myself, I would just be saying "Awww.. You got me.. Yeah you did..".. Because really you can get away with almost anything if you are smart about it. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Don't get me wrong, I'm ALL for fighting tickets, legitimately or not because I LOVE beating the system. But sometimes you just have to pay up, and in this instance you are better off doing that. If you received a traffic ticket with demerits let's say, then you have so much more possibilities like getting it reduced to no demerits by changing it to a Speed-on-green ticket, getting it thrown out by no cops showing up, or something. But you already received a low-end ticket, so the system got you this time.

Thanks for the advice man, seriously, one of how many responses in this thread that are on-topic.

I've never dealt with a violation like this. I've been in for two failure to stop at stop sign violations, both of which the police officers showed up for, an unsafe lane change violation, which the officer didn't show up for, and a driving without insurance papers, which I also managed to beat.

I don't go into these court rooms for shits and giggles or to prove how cocky and arrogant and clever I think I am. I don't go in and lie my ass of either.

The classes I've taken have taught me how to act in a court of law, how to cross-examine police officers and how to exercise my rights in a courtroom.

... and just by saying that half the people on this forum will hate on me and claim I'm some sort of arrogant ass who's costing taxpayers their hard earned coin.

Fuck that. I've seen way too many of my friends get fucked for such minor offenses they honestly didn't deserve just because the police officer didn't get his morning coffee and he felt like stereotyping them as "dangerous ricers" at the time... and they're just as at fault because they bent over and took the bullshit offenses in the ass.

I'm not doing this for any gain other than my own.

Based on the scarce on-topic info the few of you have provided I realize how I'm going to build my case.

The problem is, in 6-10 months when I go in... if the charge is thrown out and I do beat it... I won't have any proof other than word of mouth.

I've never received any formal written documentation of my past wins in traffic court... so, even if I do win, I doubt anyone here will believe me.

[Disoblige]

The court, or system, already proved it to him by issuing the ticket with the picture of his car in the photo, with said speed, lanes, time of day, etc. So unfortunately that is proof by the court's standpoint.

[Tram Common]

Originally posted by TYMSMNY


"I got a speed camera ticket for $150 bucks..." OP

"It was a green light speed camera." OP

:facepalm: What do you think a speed camera ticket is for... tinted windows?

edit: to add, it is YOUR onus to prove to the court system that your car was being used illegally and therefore you, being the registered owner, should not pay it. Being the registered owner of the car makes you responsible for its actions and being caught in the act by a camera, makes it your ticket.

Yes, I received the ticket is what I said... I never said it was me driving.

Traffic court is finicky... it can really come down to the attitude of the judge on your court date... Reverse onus doesn't exists in traffic court as far as I know.

[Disoblige]

Originally posted by Tram Common

I've never received any formal written documentation of my past wins in traffic court... so, even if I do win, I doubt anyone here will believe me.
I will believe you. Just tell us how you did it. It's very easy to know if the story is believable or not. And trust me, there are many surprising outcomes in traffic court.

[v2kai]

i might also add, that gorilla mask dude. yea definitely caught up to him. police staked his ass out and nailed him pretty good watched him put on the mask.:rofl:


as for the topic of the thread. I'm very interested to see how this turns out, OP I really hope you do follow up and post the results once you've tried to fight it in court. It will be interesting to see the outcome. I personally agree with Kevie that robotic law enforcement and taxation is bullshit and I hope for THAT reason you do quash it. I've fought a few tickets and had some thrown out but this one I'm doubtful of the outcome and the hassle.... but hey if you got the time it's definitely worth it to try.:thumbsup:

[Tram Common]

Originally posted by Disoblige
The court, or system, already proved it to him by issuing the ticket with the picture of his car in the photo, with said speed, lanes, time of day, etc. So unfortunately that is proof by the court's standpoint.

Technically I don't think that is considered proof by the court.

If it was then there wouldn't be a statute stating that the offense doesn't hold if I wasn't driving the vehicle.

(i) the owner of the vehicle was not driving the vehicle,
and
(ii) no other person was driving the vehicle with the
owner’s expressed or implied consent

Those two have to be satisfied by a judge... that's all there is to it.

If the judge is decent and likes my hair that day... maybe it's an easy out with a legitimate case.

... maybe not though. I mean... I guess it can always be appealed up can't it?

[Disoblige]

^^ Okay true enough.

In that case, he will ask you: Were you driving that day? And if not, was it someone else who drove who you gave consent to?

If no to both questions truthfully, then you're scott-free! It is an easy-out if you really want to make up a story about it and make it seem like there is no way you drove the car, but highly frowned upon obviously.

[dirtsniffer]

wouldnt your car be stolen if you didnt give someone consent to drive it?

[Tram Common]

Originally posted by Disoblige
^^ Okay true enough.

In that case, he will ask you: Were you driving that day? And if not, was it someone else who drove who you gave consent to?

If no to both questions truthfully, then you're scott-free! It is an easy-out if you really want to make up a story about it and make it seem like there is no way you drove the car, but highly frowned upon obviously.

Highly frowned upon, but you are not sworn in for these violations and you have every right to not answer questions that can incriminate you.

... so, technically by abiding to the laws given to each and every one of us as citizens the only answer to both those questions is "No", isn't it?

I guess in all honesty the answer should be no answer at all if it was in-fact you driving and then that's enough right there to not lift the offense.

I don't think that's how it will go though. The judge can't act as crown prosecutor, so, technically the crown prosecutor present will have to ask those questions to me, but how can he when I'm acting defense and unable to be questioned as a witness...

... I really don't get how this works without an officer or someone there to act as a witness against me.

[Tram Common]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
wouldnt your car be stolen if you didnt give someone consent to drive it?

No, not technically. I mean, it's all circumstantial, which is why we have courts in the first place, nothing is black and white... even these speed camera violations.

If I gave my vehicle to a friend for the week and then he lent it to one of his friends... technically I didn't give consent to that person to drive my vehicle, my friend did... so the car is not stolen, just no consent on my part was given to that individual.

[Disoblige]

I'm interested to see where it all goes lol. Never seen anyone try to bust out all these rights n what not..

Everyone would likely :facepalm: in the courtroom, but it would be funny and interesting if you did get off because of it. Depends if you are willing to look like a jackass to get off a ticket haha.

If I'm not busy, I am interested to come to your court date and sit as a public spectator :rofl:

[FraserB]

I'd be down to watch this as well.

Hopefully Dayglow or Phil will chime in on this.

[Tram Common]

I'd be down for having spectators haha. I'm going to do my best to execute my rights... who knows, maybe the judge will just shake his head and let me off the hook... or tell me it stands and ask me to leave the courtroom... Dayglow or Phil, please do chime in.

[blueToy]

Originally posted by Kennyredline

I hate people like you. You know why there are so many traffic fatalities? Because of people just like you; who clog up the courts system with bullshit excuses and flat out lies to get out of a ticket you obviously deserve from fucking speeding. People that really deserve to get pulled over and have their licenses taken away don't get pulled over because the courts are already clogged with people like you. You come across like a smug arrogant little prick, and you probably think the court is your little playground hey, 'cause you've taken "some courses" so you're going to show everybody what a smart cookie you are, right?
PAY YOUR FUCKING TICKET.



I must concur with this statement . OP comes across as a whiney bitch .
Oh the fucking inhumanity ... I got a fucking $150 speeding ticket . Who the fuck cares ? Why not pick up your little sack off the fucking chair and go and fight this thing first , THEN come in here claiming victory rather then taking a bitches approach , ya whiney crybaby . PAY YOUR TICKET and then slowly crawl your shameful ass back into the hole from where you came .

Is that too harsh ?

[msommers]

After thinking about this a little here this morning, I think I've come to a conclusion.

OP is exercising his rights as a Canadian citizen to be able to defend himself since we in Canada are innocent until proven guilty. I for one love that he is willing to recognize his rights and use them - a lot of citizens have no idea the rights they possess!The problem lies in one of two places here.

1) OP feels his privacy is at stack and needs to defend that - and is also not guilty. Fine. How? Well I'd love an explanation.

2) OP is knowingly guilty of the ticket, ABUSING his rights to defend himself in hopes to get the ticket tossed, wasting the Court's time. If this is the case, then OP is just a dishonest cheap ass. Curiosity may play a role here...is it possible to try to snake my way out of it? If it is, everyone should be! Accept that a machine beat you, try to get it reduced and life goes on.

As much as I like seeing "the system" beat, this doesn't seem like a case out of principle but monetary value with maybe the slightest possible hint of curiosity. Keep trying to seek out any bullshit loophole you find, just as a guilty coward would.

[cream]

can i... hijack?
so i cop said he clocked me at 71 in a 50. i was going even speed with a bmw infront of me and they said he wasnt speeding at all. luxury car vs sports, they pulled me over. never showed me their radar gun. i want to fight, is it possible to win?

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by cream
can i... hijack?
so i cop said he clocked me at 71 in a 50. i was going even speed with a bmw infront of me and they said he wasnt speeding at all. luxury car vs sports, they pulled me over. never showed me their radar gun. i want to fight, is it possible to win?

Anything is possible when your are Tram. But you are not Tram.

:rofl:

IMO Tram, let us know the court day and may be we'll grab some pop corn and show up for some entertainment.

[calgary403]

Originally posted by cream
can i... hijack?
so i cop said he clocked me at 71 in a 50. i was going even speed with a bmw infront of me and they said he wasnt speeding at all. luxury car vs sports, they pulled me over. never showed me their radar gun. i want to fight, is it possible to win?

I once received a speeding ticket from an RCMP officer who "estimated" my speed. It got thrown out in court.

[cream]

hmm sounds good. the deadline is sept 1. do i show up on sept 1 or anytime. i remember youth court was only thursdays

[Anomaly]

Thumbs up to the op, and best of luck in court.

Glad to see someone standing up for there rights.

Photo radar is nothing but a bullshit cash cow for the city under the guise of safety. I can't believe that people in BC and Saskatchewan were vocal enough to keep it out of their respective provinces, but Alberta just rolls over and takes it.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Tram Common

Technically I don't think that is considered proof by the court.

If it was then there wouldn't be a statute stating that the offense doesn't hold if I wasn't driving the vehicle.

(i) the owner of the vehicle was not driving the vehicle,
and
(ii) no other person was driving the vehicle with the
owner’s expressed or implied consent

Those two have to be satisfied by a judge... that's all there is to it.

If the judge is decent and likes my hair that day... maybe it's an easy out with a legitimate case.

... maybe not though. I mean... I guess it can always be appealed up can't it? [/B]

This is the key to your argument, and it will not be satisfied. Without lying, I doubt you will be able to convince the judge you weren't driving that day. If you actually weren't, you will probably need witness's (ie the "driver"), or other proof it wasn't you, otherwise it will just be your word, and the judge isn't likely to rule in your favor, based on just your word.

[Redlyne_mr2]

They tried introducing photo radar in Ontario years back. Some how in some way photo radar was pulled a few months later. People actually voiced there opinion and fought the tickets, not sure why we can't do the same here.

EDIT: NM looks like the conservatives promised it be removed.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/07/03/photo-radar.html

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2
They tried introducing photo radar in Ontario years back. Some how in some way photo radar was pulled a few months later. People actually voiced there opinion and fought the tickets, not sure why we can't do the same here.


Because the general Albertan consensus is not "Hey my rights and freedoms are slowly being taken away every day!" as it should be, it's "Oh, I don't break the law, so why should I care?"

[msommers]

My question was and still is, how? What was their outcry specifically? I'm still also wondering how rights and freedoms are being taken away from green light and photo radar tickets. What rights outlined in the Charter are they taking away?

[Disoblige]

Originally posted by msommers

2) OP is knowingly guilty of the ticket, ABUSING his rights to defend himself in hopes to get the ticket tossed, wasting the Court's time. If this is the case, then OP is just a dishonest cheap ass. Curiosity may play a role here...is it possible to try to snake my way out of it? If it is, everyone should be! Accept that a machine beat you, try to get it reduced and life goes on.

As much as I like seeing "the system" beat, this doesn't seem like a case out of principle but monetary value with maybe the slightest possible hint of curiosity. Keep trying to seek out any bullshit loophole you find, just as a guilty coward would.
Quote-worthy.

[Crymson]

Hey TRAM!

Support you 100%!

The point isn't to beat the ticket, the point is to make it not worth the provinces effort to tax it's citizens through bylaws and traffic offences.

Literally, try to waste someones time equivalent to the ticketed value in court or however you can. If everyone did these simple things, the province would be forced to stop using the police and robots as automated tax machines.

Sure, the "peseants" could also beat the system by being 100% compliant, but then of course a new crop of offenses would simply appear.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by Disoblige

Quote-worthy.

Even IF the OP is 'guilty' of said 'crime'
(btw, this is a victim-less crime)

Even IF he is 'guilty' he STILL has the right to fight the monetary charge that is arbitrarily nailed to his crucifix.

What gives them the right to ask for money?
When the courts try to control speed by causing the middle class citizen already crippled by state power to even more be forced into poverty.

This does not stop speeding, this merely teaches people that the lesson is that the richer you are the more ok it is to speed.

Let the OP pick a non-state funded charity of his choice, show the tax payer that it isn't just a scam to make money.

[kenny]

Surprised so many of you guys are against photo radar and speed cameras. I wish they would get rid of manned speed traps completely and replace them all with cameras.

No more need to worry about demerits and insurance increases and they are so easy to spot anyways.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by msommers
My question was and still is, how? What was their outcry specifically? I'm still also wondering how rights and freedoms are being taken away from green light and photo radar tickets. What rights outlined in the Charter are they taking away?

Green light and photo radars aren't taking away any specific rights or freedoms, I was just referring to the mentality.



Originally posted by kenny
Surprised so many of you guys are against photo radar and speed cameras. I wish they would get rid of manned speed traps completely and replace them all with cameras.

No more need to worry about demerits and insurance increases and they are so easy to spot anyways.

Probably because it just seems like a cash grab. Everyone knows the camera's aren't protecting citizens, they aren't making the roads safer for anyone, in fact it's just the opposite when someone slams on their brakes because they see what they think is a photo-van or intersection. The only way they would make it safer, is if 1/2 the intersections in the city had a camera on them, that way you just COULDN'T speed without a ticket.

It probably also to do with the fun of trying to talk your way of out a ticket, if you get pulled over... not that it seems to happen anymore in Calgary, the CPS traffic division act more like machines than the camera's do :rofl:

[speedog]

Originally posted by Crymson
Hey TRAM!

Support you 100%!

The point isn't to beat the ticket, the point is to make it not worth the provinces effort to tax it's citizens through bylaws and traffic offences.

Literally, try to waste someones time equivalent to the ticketed value in court or however you can. If everyone did these simple things, the province would be forced to stop using the police and robots as automated tax machines.

Sure, the "peasants" could also beat the system by being 100% compliant, but then of course a new crop of offenses would simply appear. Unbelievable that people really think that the province could be forced to back away from ticketing people for speeding - it just isn't going to happen. Instead, the province will happily spend everyone's tax dollars to defend their side and rightly so - laws are laws. If you really want to make a difference, then create a lobby group and make a difference that way - things can be changed/saved by special interest groups. Have experienced it first hand - only problem is that it takes work by dedicated individuals working together as a group.

Bucking the system one at a time will accomplish nothing other than possibly raising my taxes to cover for these additional expenses. So if you want some speed limits increased (IE: 125kph Brooks - Medicine Hat), then create a group and work towards that end. A collaborative effort will almost always accomplish much more and often in a way more cost effective manner.

[SilverGS]

I always found the argument against photo radar to be odd.

"It's against my rights and freedoms!!"

How so? Your right to speed and not get caught?

"It's an invasion of my privacy!!"

Invasion of your privacy as you drive along a public road?

Ok so photo radar seems like a cash grab but I don't see anything wrong with it. Don't break the law and you won't have a problem.

Someone said they have the right to cruise 15 over on an empty road. Umm no you don't. You are still breaking the law. Sure you are not creating a dangerous environment persay but you are still breaking the law so if you get caught speeding on an empty road by a machine designed to do so then too bad.

OP, I guess we will see where this goes but I can't see you winning this.

Agree with speed on greens or not you were caught speeding by it. The court has proof that your car was speeding.

As others have said, unless you can show your car was stolen, you are responsible for your car even if someone you know took it without implicity asking you for permission. Obviously this is why you don't get demerits since they can't prove it was you specifically who was driving. However, since your car was caught you are responsible and you will have to go after the other person separately if that is the case.

I have seen traffic court cases where the judge asked the person questions so if they ask you if you were driving you are hooped unless you lie. If you say you have the right not to answer that is fine but then that doesn't help you overturn the conviction on your car which you are responsible for.

As for innocent until proven guilty. Well your car has been proven guilty and since you are the registered owner you are responsible for it. The onus now is for you to prove that their proof is wrong and it's hard to argue against a machine.

[SilverGS]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


Probably because it just seems like a cash grab. Everyone knows the camera's aren't protecting citizens, they aren't making the roads safer for anyone, in fact it's just the opposite when someone slams on their brakes because they see what they think is a photo-van or intersection. The only way they would make it safer, is if 1/2 the intersections in the city had a camera on them, that way you just COULDN'T speed without a ticket.

It probably also to do with the fun of trying to talk your way of out a ticket, if you get pulled over... not that it seems to happen anymore in Calgary, the CPS traffic division act more like machines than the camera's do :rofl:

I thought the same about people slamming the brakes. I wonder what the stats say now though since we have had a the cameras for a while.

No it still happens but you need to be a good looking girl probably. A friend got away with a warning a while ago. She happened to be wearing a very short skirt that day. Hmmm.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by SilverGS


I thought the same about people slamming the brakes. I wonder what the stats say now though since we have had a the cameras for a while.


I'm sure the official statistics would be "There's less speed/red light infractions at those intersections now, then there was when they were first installed"

[speedog]

Weird - I've been driving in this city for over 30 years and hardly ever see anyone slamming on their brakes because of photo radar/cameras. Certainly I've seen people hitting their brakes to slow down, but never have I seen what could be considered something that could've caused an accident. Beyonders experiencing this that are in this thread must be the exception then as best as I can tell.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by speedog
Weird - I've been driving in this city for over 30 years and hardly ever see anyone slamming on their brakes because of photo radar/cameras. Certainly I've seen people hitting their brakes to slow down, but never have I seen what could be considered something that could've caused an accident. Beyonders experiencing this that are in this thread must be the exception then as best as I can tell.

QFT.

Misinformation at it's best. Keep in mind, I'm not for them, I just think it's another voluntary tax on stupid behavior.

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by kevie88
If Nazi's came to power in Canada this next election, I truly believe 50% of beyond members would run down the street and kill the Goldsteins, just because the government said it's the right thing to do.

Speed Cameras are wrong. Having a robot enforcing the 'law' is wrong.

This.