Failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign.

[Seth1968]

Long story short:

- Charles Adler is a radio host via 770 AM that IMO, should be PM. I'll elaborate if needed.

- He's got a totally clean driving record, but was recently pulled over for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign.

- When requested by Adler, cop had no video evidence.

- Adler hires a lawyer and is going through the motions.

With that said, how can someone be charged with this so called offence without uh...proof?

BTW- Don't even start with the charged vs convicted lame ass argument.

[eblend]

Your word vs his I think....and pretty easy conviction...no one ever comes to a complete stop for 3 seconds at a stop sign, known fact

[Mitsu3000gt]

An officer's word is often as good as proof to a judge. If you can't more convincingly say otherwise, chances are the Judge will go with the officer's word. If he has notes, even better.

On another note, probably 80-90% of the stop signs in this city should be yields, and are generally treated as such anyway.

[Seth1968]

So someones vested opinion is proof enough to fuck up anthers life?

[FraserB]

Long story short:

- Charles Adler is a radio host via 770 AM that IMO, should be PM. I'll elaborate if needed.

- He's got a totally clean driving record, but was recently pulled over for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign.

- When requested by Adler, cop had no video evidence.

- Adler hires a lawyer and is going through the motions.

With that said, how can someone be charged with this so called offence without uh...proof?

BTW- Don't even start with the charged vs convicted lame ass argument.

Did he not get video as part of disclosure when he decided to fight the ticket or did he try to demand a video at the side of the road? Because I'm pretty sure that a cop can't just go into the dashcam memory, rummage around and show people things.

The officer believed that an offense occurred, video proof or not, and ticketed him on that basis. You need proof for a conviction, not a charge. And if a simple traffic ticket is going to be the tipping point that "fucks up your life", there might be other issues there.

[16hypen3sp]

Your word vs his I think....and pretty easy conviction...no one ever comes to a complete stop for 3 seconds at a stop sign, known fact

I agree, but I can never find this so called '3 second rule' in the Use of Highway Reg. You can proceed when safe to do so. If that's after 1 second of stopping, then so be it.

[Seth1968]

Did he not get video as part of disclosure when he decided to fight the ticket or did he try to demand a video at the side of the road? Because I'm pretty sure that a cop can't just go into the dashcam memory, rummage around and show people things.

The officer believed that an offense occurred, video proof or not, and ticketed him on that basis. You need proof for a conviction, not a charge. And if a simple traffic ticket is going to be the tipping point that "fucks up your life", there might be other issues there.

What disclosure? WTF?

Now how about you're so called minor traffic ticket is the means to fuck up the so called "lower people", who work their asses off at minimum pay, yet have to pay 1 week of work for a minor (debatable) traffic offense, and said punishment is generally permanent.

So ya, any legit traffic offenses should be based on income.

[Feruk]

So ya, any legit traffic offenses should be based on income.
So unemployed people can do what they want?

[FraserB]

What disclosure? WTF?



You said that video evidence was asked for. Was it asked for on the side of the road, as part of disclosure prior to court or did it come out at court that the only evidence was the observation of a police officer?

[eblend]

and said punishment is generally permanent.



Not sure what you mean by this...in 3 years time it's wiped from your record.

[sexualbanana]

Long story short:

- Charles Adler is a radio host via 770 AM that IMO, should be PM. I'll elaborate if needed.

- He's got a totally clean driving record, but was recently pulled over for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign.

- When requested by Adler, cop had no video evidence.

- Adler hires a lawyer and is going through the motions.

With that said, how can someone be charged with this so called offence without uh...proof?

BTW- Don't even start with the charged vs convicted lame ass argument.

Phil has explained it before, but traffic offences, for whatever reason, aren't subject to the presumption of innocence as it would be in a criminal case. I don't know the legal justification for it, but basically as it relates to traffic offences, it's up to the offender to prove that they didn't break the law.

Given that this occurs thousands of times a day in Canada, there has probably been more than a few challenges in regards to its constitutionality with no results to show for it.

[lilmira]

Pick your battle, there are way better things to fight for.

[Mitsu3000gt]

So someones vested opinion is proof enough to fuck up anthers life?

Such has been the case for all of history, so nothing really unexpected in this case. The most frustrating thing about an unwarranted ticket is the cost of your time to go fight it, but since there is no real consequence for the officer if he is lying (not really provable anyways unless you have a video), you're probably better off just paying it if your time is worth anything and move on.

My personal, and highly unrealistic opinion is that a ticket should not be written in the first place without video or similarly irrefutable evidence unless the officer is prepared to have said ticket deducted from their own pay if they are caught writing BS tickets to fill quotas. Wouldn't that be nice.

[schurchill39]

In my neighborhood there is a four way stop that NOBODY ever stops for. It drives me crazy especially because last year before the stop signs were put in a young boy got ran over and was in a coma. He's still recovering. Everyone in my community is aware of it and still 80% of people roll right through it.

If he didn't come to a complete stop then he deserves the ticket. The police officers word is proof in this case. Life isn't always about "pics or it didn't happen". I've gotten a stop sign ticket before that I thought for sure I came to a complete stop over but if the officer says I didn't then I didn't. Like someone else said, if a stop sign ticket is the tipping point to ruin your life you have a lot bigger issues.

[revelations]

With that said, how can someone be charged with this so called offence without uh...proof?



Uh because a cop saw him commit the traffic offense? Same goes for LIDAR trap operators. They "see" a reading on the gun and ticket accordingly. There is no "proof" of anything.

[J-hop]

If we're honest though, do you really see that many examples of legitimately BS tickets given out? If by BS people mean the cop was being strict with the law that is just a personal opinion.

From my personal experience cops are pretty lenient when pulling people over. Unless you're one of those PJWs that opens their window a crack and/or stonewall's the cop you generally get treated with respect. Twice I've been given warnings. "Sir why were you going so fast?", "I was being dumb" = warning.

I bet the common response to that would be "yo bro you shouldn't ever admit fault, that's dumb bro, ask to see their radar bro".

[speedog]

So unemployed people can do what they want?
Good question, I am curious as to what Seth1968's response will be.

As far as video evidence being required for every ticketed offence - then those same people will be screaming when their taxes go up to support said additional expenses. There just is no way to satiate the concerns of some.

[RY213]

Id rather see things like this enforced instead of cash cow speeding tickets. My pet peeve is when people dont stop behind the stop line and instead coast up over the pedestrian crossing to see if traffic is clear. There have been may times I have almost been hit as both a pedestrian and cyclist because of this.

[Gestalt]

You got it.

Its revenue. No proof, no evidence is required. Just someone chargong your action was statistical risky, and being financially rewarded for there accusations.

New news to you?

[Seth1968]

If they're unemployed, then they probably can't afford to drive. If so however, they would have to pay within a year or do community service...whatever.

Adler asked the cop at the side of the road if he had video evidence of the rolling stop, and the cop said no.

[Seth1968]

My personal, and highly unrealistic opinion is that a ticket should not be written in the first place without video or similarly irrefutable evidence

Exactly, but why should that have to be unrealistic? It seems to me that convicting someone without proof is against some constitutional law.

[93VR6]

If you don't want to run the risk of getting a ticket while driving then don't drive, it's a responsibility not a right.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Exactly, but why should that have to be unrealistic? It seems to me that convicting someone without proof is against some constitutional law.

It's unrealistic in the sense that it will never in a million years happen because ticket revenue would go way down. Requiring proof for tickets beyond someone's subjective opinion and/or possibly unreliable witness account should never be sufficient to inflict a significant fine, but such is life. If you followed around a patrol car and said it was running red lights all day without proof, guaranteed there would be no consequence. If an officer said you did that with no proof, you would get a ticket. Just how it works. A citizen's word has no weight in court in these scenarios.

Like those people who got distracted driving charges for driving a manual transmission - nothing you an do about it except bend over and pay the ticket. I can't imagine many scenarios more frustrating, but your word against an officer's and you lose every time even if he isn't telling the truth, or believes he saw something he didn't. Hopefully these scenarios are rare enough that it doesn't make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things but who knows.

[Feruk]

As far as video evidence being required for every ticketed offence - then those same people will be screaming when their taxes go up to support said additional expenses. There just is no way to satiate the concerns of some.
Don't all cop cars come equipped with video already? As for taxes going up to make up for further upgrades, I don't buy that. Last year they hired a whole bunch of new cops based on additional revenue from photo radar. Spend some of that money on upgrades.

[J-hop]

Exactly, but why should that have to be unrealistic? It seems to me that convicting someone without proof is against some constitutional law.

You aren't convicting someone of a criminal act.

As mentioned before there comes a point where there is a compromise that needs to be made between what is theoretically right and what is most practicable.

In theory every speeding ticket should require video evidence, witnesses, psychologists to discuss state of mind of both the police officer and the driver etc etc. But if people honestly think that is intelligent and practicable then I don't know what to say....

Seriously, you roll a stop sign, you know it, the cop knows it. Don't treat them like a damn fool and you have 100000x better chance of getting out of the situation without a ticket. These PJWs are wasting just as much tax dollars as the SJWs fighting over washrooms.......

[95EagleAWD]

Your word vs his I think....and pretty easy conviction...no one ever comes to a complete stop for 3 seconds at a stop sign, known fact

Nothing in the law says you need to stop for three seconds either; you just need to fully stop.

[sexualbanana]

I bet the common response to that would be "yo bro you shouldn't ever admit fault, that's dumb bro, ask to see their radar bro".

You can still avoid admitting fault without being a jerk about it. A simple "I don't know" works just as well.

[revelations]

Like those people who got distracted driving charges for driving a manual transmission - nothing you an do about it except bend over and pay the ticket. I can't imagine many scenarios more frustrating, but your word against an officer's and you lose every time even if he isn't telling the truth, or believes he saw something he didn't. Hopefully these scenarios are rare enough that it doesn't make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things but who knows.

Did this happen in Canada? Thats a surefire way for a member to get reassigned if it was an epidemic caused by one clown.

[J-hop]

You can still avoid admitting fault without being a jerk about it. A simple "I don't know" works just as well.

Not really though, how often do you have zero clue how fast you're going or don't know you're above the speed limit?

Talk to any officer, they're just like you and I, playing the ignorant card pisses them off as much as it would you or I.

Treat them like they're stupid or you're oblivious and good luck getting any leniency.

[phil98z24]

Long story short:

- Charles Adler is a radio host via 770 AM that IMO, should be PM. I'll elaborate if needed.

- He's got a totally clean driving record, but was recently pulled over for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign.

- When requested by Adler, cop had no video evidence.

- Adler hires a lawyer and is going through the motions.

With that said, how can someone be charged with this so called offence without uh...proof?

BTW- Don't even start with the charged vs convicted lame ass argument.

I'm not going to explain it because I'll likely screw it up, but doing a little digging into reasonable and probable grounds will explain everything you need to know about this. There are lots of legal tests of reasonableness and those grounds are founded both in subjective and objective grounds that are tested in court. If everything was black and white and charges would only be laid with hard, concrete evidence, we wouldn't need a court system because that would infer automatic guilt - seems terribly unconstitutional to me!

It's simply not practical for the system to function any way outside of what we have. There is a foundation of trust that an officer is laying those charges truthfully and properly, and while I agree that there are times when that isn't happening, I think it works very well. An officer can't just get up and say I saw this or that, they have to fully and completely articulate what they saw, and explain their evidence, which a justice or judge will test for reliability and truthfulness before rendering a verdict. It's all we have outside of something unreliastic, IMO. :dunno:

[sexualbanana]

Not really though, how often do you have zero clue how fast you're going or don't know you're above the speed limit?

Talk to any officer, they're just like you and I, playing the ignorant card pisses them off as much as it would you or I.

Treat them like they're stupid or you're oblivious and good luck getting any leniency.

Anecdotally, the 2nd last time I got stopped (about 7 years ago, I think), I got pulled over for I think 80 into a 60 (that stupid stretch coming off Deerfoot onto Barlow right by Deerfoot Casino.

I got asked if I knew what I got stopped for, I said no. For which he goes on to explain. Then he gave me a warning.

To me, it's about the same as if an officer asked to check my trunk. I know I don't have shit to hide, but I'm also not going to allow it. In traffic stops, I may know what I did wrong, but I'm not going to outright admit to it either.

[J-hop]

To each their own I guess. I just have to laugh with all the PJWs talking about how they got a BS ticket and then it comes out that before even getting a ticket they were asking to see the radar readout, calibration records etc. If you make it tough for them to do their job then they'll return the favour. Yea it's "your right" to question that is upheld by the law which is what that officer is paid to protect. You give a little, they give a little.

[Kloubek]

Nothing in the law says you need to stop for three seconds either; you just need to fully stop.

...which, if true (and I presume it is) there could be room to interpret whether someone truly stopped or not. Sometimes it can be challenging to know whether a vehicle is fully stopped as opposed to doing a slow roll - especially from the front or behind.

In my mind, laws are there to allow for punishment, should someone blatantly break them. To me, a slow (and I do mean slow) roll through a stop sign isn't hurting anyone in most cases. I pass through one in particular every day, and you can see well in advance both potential locations other vehicles might be. Plus there is very low traffic in this area. I roll through it every day, and I promise I am not being unsafe in any way. If I was stopped for this, it will be solely to meet a quota or to feel useful as opposed to actually improving driver or pedestrian safety.

With that said, blatant instances absolutely should be (and I'm sure are) ticketed. Not only is not at least slowing to a crawl dangerous, but it is pretty hard to dispute unless the cop is outright lying - which I imagine is exceptionally rare.

[Feruk]

Not really though, how often do you have zero clue how fast you're going or don't know you're above the speed limit?

Talk to any officer, they're just like you and I, playing the ignorant card pisses them off as much as it would you or I.

Treat them like they're stupid or you're oblivious and good luck getting any leniency.
My approach:
Cop: "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Me: "I suppose that depends on when you clocked me officer. How fast do you have me going?"

[sexualbanana]

...which, if true (and I presume it is) there could be room to interpret whether someone truly stopped or not. Sometimes it can be challenging to know whether a vehicle is fully stopped as opposed to doing a slow roll - especially from the front or behind.


I remember being told that they look for the jerk of the head/tail light. Though one could argue that a quick stomp on the brakes will cause that jerk which doesn't necessarily mean a full stop.

But yeah, I'm pretty sure the rule is just complete stop and has nothing to do with length of stop.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Did this happen in Canada? Thats a surefire way for a member to get reassigned if it was an epidemic caused by one clown.

I don't remember - I read about it a while back shortly after the law was introduced. There were several instances of it but I don't recall if it was a Canadian or USA source. Either way pretty ridiculous, but no more so than any other ticket issued under false assumptions.

[95EagleAWD]

...which, if true (and I presume it is) there could be room to interpret whether someone truly stopped or not. Sometimes it can be challenging to know whether a vehicle is fully stopped as opposed to doing a slow roll - especially from the front or behind.

In my mind, laws are there to allow for punishment, should someone blatantly break them. To me, a slow (and I do mean slow) roll through a stop sign isn't hurting anyone in most cases. I pass through one in particular every day, and you can see well in advance both potential locations other vehicles might be. Plus there is very low traffic in this area. I roll through it every day, and I promise I am not being unsafe in any way. If I was stopped for this, it will be solely to meet a quota or to feel useful as opposed to actually improving driver or pedestrian safety.

With that said, blatant instances absolutely should be (and I'm sure are) ticketed. Not only is not at least slowing to a crawl dangerous, but it is pretty hard to dispute unless the cop is outright lying - which I imagine is exceptionally rare.

I totally get what you're saying, but one could argue that actually stopping at that stop sign in no way impedes your progress by a measurable amount. It literally adds two seconds do your drive.

[max_boost]

One can argue anything. I stop for a quick second, take a look and off I go. Also, dash cam! lol

[OTown]

TIL: If its not caught on camera, it never happened.

79268

[16hypen3sp]

My approach:
Cop: "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Me: "I suppose that depends on when you clocked me officer. How fast do you have me going?"

My approach:

Cop: "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Me: "Nope. Speedometre accuracy isn't regulated in Canada."

[speedog]

Speedometre?

That has to be the first time I've seen it written that way.

[J-hop]

My approach:

Cop: "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Me: "Nope. Speedometre accuracy isn't regulated in Canada."

lol

Cops response will be "oh great, we got a smart ass here"

Vehicle manufacturers follow SAE standards. 9/10 times your speedometer will read slightly higher than your actual speed anyways so that isn't an intelligent excuse for being above the speed limit.

[16hypen3sp]

Speedometre?

That has to be the first time I've seen it written that way.

Yah. It's suppose to be speedometer tho. Meter is the preferred spelling for a device that's measuring something. I'm grammer challenged. :)


lol

Cops response will be "oh great, we got a smart ass here"

Vehicle manufacturers follow SAE standards. 9/10 times your speedometer will read slightly higher than your actual speed anyways so that isn't an intelligent excuse for being above the speed limit.

Mostly true. So really, my response to the officer wouldn't be incorrect.

[ExtraSlow]

Have you guys had a cop actually ask you if you know how fast you were going? I don't get that many tickets any more, but back in my misspent youth I had a bunch, and not one single time did the police office ever ask my a question or say anything other than "License, registration, here's your ticket, drive safe"

I thought that question only happened on TV??

[Gestalt]

Have you guys had a cop actually ask you if you know how fast you were going? I don't get that many tickets any more, but back in my misspent youth I had a bunch, and not one single time did the police office ever ask my a question or say anything other than "License, registration, here's your ticket, drive safe"

I thought that question only happened on TV??

Yes, everytime.

[SKR]

Have you guys had a cop actually ask you if you know how fast you were going? I don't get that many tickets any more, but back in my misspent youth I had a bunch, and not one single time did the police office ever ask my a question or say anything other than "License, registration, here's your ticket, drive safe"

I thought that question only happened on TV??

I get "do you know why I pulled you over", never "do you know how fast you were going".

[Mista Bob]

The two times I've been pulled over for speeding, they just told me how fast I was going and never really asked any questions.

[Kloubek]

I totally get what you're saying, but one could argue that actually stopping at that stop sign in no way impedes your progress by a measurable amount. It literally adds two seconds do your drive.

One doesn't have to "argue" it. It's true.

On the other hand, you are assuming the is a safety advantage of doing so. If you can see in all directions slowly heading to a stop sign and you know full well there are no other vehicles involved, then you're basically just stopping for the sake of a rule, as opposed to doing so for the actual safety of others. And honestly, I'm not good at following rules unless there is a reason for the rule.