Poke Holes In My Speeding Ticket Defense

[darthVWader]

Most of the Photo vehicles park illegally. Use that as your back up reason

[zipdoa]

Originally posted by black300
Going 12 km/h more than posted speed limit is excessive but not for a photo radar ticket.

There are no demerits and ticket shouldn't be more than $170.

I think it will be a waste of time on your end.

On another note: I saw a photo radar vehicle parked on memorial drive after 14st. There was a guy standing 500 meters before the radar with a huge sign saying "Radar" and an arrow point in the direction.

Wonder if it just a homeless guy who gets tips from drivers who would have got nailed if they did not adjust their speed.

I see him frequently. He's on the grass when you're headed Westbound on Memorial Drive RIGHT after you pass under the 14st bridge. He sits right infront of where the Yield sign is where the 14st-to-memorial westbound turn off is.

What a legend. I figured he got a ticket one time, and now has a crazy vendetta against photo radar enforcement. I've seen CPS trying to kick him out before, but he can't be doing anything illegal?

[gwill]

You should be seeing the JP not going to trial. You'll get the answers much quicker and can pick when you go see the JP. When you set it for trial that's your date... It's not as convenient.

[revelations]

Originally posted by Feruk
My wife got a speeding ticket... so I'm headed to court. I think I've got a pretty good defense, but please poke holes in it.

Ticket is photo radar from stationary van for 12km/h over in a 50km/h zone. My defense is based on the peace officer not following guidelines in regards to a proper public awareness strategy. I plan to cross-examine him and not testify. I am challenging the peace officer's right to take the ticket rather than the contents of the ticket.

1: http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...ementSigns.pdf
From this document: If a municipality has or will be implementing photo enforcement within the community, that municipality is required to follow the 'Automated Traffic Enforcement Technology Guidelines' of providing public awareness.

As a public awareness requirement, signage must be installed to inform drivers of photo enforcement locations. The sign permit issued by Alberta Transportation for the installation of these signs should be with the municipality and not with their photo enforcement contractor.

2: The guidelines: https://www.solgps.alberta.ca/progra...pt%202014).pdf

The guidelines seem like they talk more about speed-on-green cameras, but section 5 about "public awareness" still seems to discuss signage. However, on entrance to the community, and all the way to where I got the ticket, there is no signage.

3. I believe they can also achieve disclosure via publically posting. So on the Calgary.ca website, I found their disclosure (streets and communities for September). Link: http://newsroom.calgary.ca/news/sept...ment-locations

The street and community where I got the ticket isn't disclosed.

My argument: The officer was not following proper set out guidelines at the time the picture was taken. Specifically, he failed to ensure public disclosure as there was (a) no sign posted, and (b) no public notice given.

I read through the TSA and Police Act this morning, but found nothing that can help or hinder my case. Can I win? What are easy counter-arguments?

This case could go any of 3-5 ways depending on the JP, what mood they are in, how strong their coffee was, etc.

And as mentioned, there might be some overriding legislation to permit this.

Dress nice, address the JP as "your worship" and dont mumble. You can sometimes get quite far with demeanor alone in traffic court.

Many people show up in jeans and talk to the JP as if they are a teacher in class.

[Mibz]

I went through the traffic bylaw and couldn't find anything, nor could I find another bylaw that could contain something pertaining to this, so it may be that Calgary is, in its entirety, considered a municipality and Kenny's got it right, that the major thoroughfares have signs so it covers all potential vehicle-based photo radar.

If I were you, I would go in there with the attitude of "Can you explain this portion of the law to me, because it sounds like there needs to be signage and/or disclosure and none was present" instead of something more aggressive like "This ticket is invalid because...", and be expecting to pay the full ticket.

But that's just me.

[turbotrip]

I've gone to the JV for 4 photoradar tickets this year, and all of them have taken less than 30sec in the office. Simply state you would like a reduction and are pleading guilty and they have been dropped to ~50%

[Maxt]

Is the operator there to confirm the photo infraction, or is he just there to be a driver for the vehicle? If he is involved in the operation of the camera, ask the operator if he smokes and if he recorded when he went for a smoke. I regularly work at few plants on Ogden road and often see the photo radar operator out of the vehicle smoking, usually standing on the passenger side of the vehicle.

[FixedGear]

Stop wasting taxpayers money and just pay the ticket.

Everyone bitches about taxes and govt spending, so why isn't anyone telling this fool to quit trying to play the system at our expense?

[speedog]

Originally posted by FixedGear
Stop wasting taxpayers money and just pay the ticket.

Everyone bitches about taxes and govt spending, so why isn't anyone telling this fool to quit trying to play the system at our expense?

Isn't living in Canada great?

You have the unrestricted ability to be critical of others like you are doing in this thread while others have the right to challenge what they believe to be injustices served against them.

[jacky4566]

I just learned in the states in some cases the municipality will bill you for the court time. So you could win your $170 ticket only to pay $250 in court fees. Seems really dumb when you win the case.

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by speedog

Isn't living in Canada great?

You have the unrestricted ability to be critical of others like you are doing in this thread while others have the right to challenge what they believe to be injustices served against them.

How is my criticism wasting taxpayer dollars?

[speedog]

Originally posted by FixedGear


How is my criticism wasting taxpayer dollars?

Because it's a waste of ones and zeroes which are most likely carried on TELUS' network at some point which has been or still might be subsidized in whole or part by taxpayer dollars.

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by darthVWader
Most of the Photo vehicles park illegally. Use that as your back up reason

No they don't. Photo (in Edmonton at least) is operated by level two Peace Officers, who are exempt from portions of the TSA in the course of their duties.

[ryder_23]

Originally posted by Feruk
Thanks for the replies guys.

Really though, if your contribution is to tell me to pay the ticket and move on, please move onto another thread. Already seen that advice in just about every thread dedicated to tickets (no matter how absurd) and I still decided not to pay it. Don't worry about me taking time off work or that it's only $120, that's really not your concern, or the point of this thread. I've already pled not guilty, so going to trial.

Is anyone aware of another location where I can get rules and regulations around where they can place photo radar? Google has not been kind. Also haven't been very successful scouring through Calgary bylaws. There must be something set out...

Well november as weak as it is, covers there ass I guess.

In response to community needs identified through statistical analysis, collisions, and citizen concerns, mobile photo radar will be set up on Crowchild Trail, Deerfoot Trail, Barlow Trail, Stoney Trail, Macleod Trail, Sarcee Trail and Glenmore Trail.

For the month of November photo radar will be focusing on playground zones, high collision locations and areas of public concern within all Calgary communities.

Assuming ur Sept link, thats when you got the ticket. Might of hidden it in community newsletters or something as well?

[OTown]

The reason why this defense will never hold is because it does nothing to actually point out or defend the speeding offence. Its just fodder to try and see if the vehicle is operating legally - which it is and has been pointed out by legislation as well as a bunch of people on here. Everyone and their dog knows that photo radar operates in this city and province, including the OP.

At the end of the day the OP's vehicle was speeding, and thus as the registered owner is subject to fines regarding said infractions against the traffic safety act. There. Done. A simple fine.

There is no 'injustice' here. OP is trying to get out of a ticket that his vehicle clearly deserves and trying to outsmart the system when he should just own up (or perhaps try and get a reduction in fines). His whole "I plead not guilty so I'm going to trial no matter what you say" shows me that he clearly doesn't care what we have to say.

So I must ask why - OP - did you even post this in the first place if you wont listen to critical and logical explanations when you are already set on your ways? Seems like a waste of time for all involved. If you are going to fight it, then fight it - Its your right to do so. But don't ask for validation and then whine when others disagree.

[OTown]

Originally posted by Black Gts
I imagine wherever they want to set up. I recently seen a truck all blue and red flashing in the left hand shoulder of stoney, pull over a lane and keep going and as I'm passing he's alone and a radar unit. I haven't got a ticket yet, hopefully he's only pointing at the left lane but that's a cash grab and not at all about the safety they spout.

So the fact that you cant slow down for a few seconds to safely pass a first responder/tow truck makes it a cash grab? Put yourself in their shoes and that it was you on the side of the road. It would make you feel pretty unconfortable to have cars flying by at 110km/h+ while you are trying to do your job.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Sanctimonioustown!

[Feruk]

Thanks for the advice thus far guys. Starting to think I might have to just bring my evidence, ask the cop what disclosure is required, and have everything ready to use depending on his answer...

I guess I'll get full disclosure to see if there's anything additional I can use.

Any traffic cops care to comment? I know we've got a few on here.

Originally posted by OTown
So I must ask why - OP - did you even post this in the first place if you wont listen to critical and logical explanations when you are already set on your ways? Seems like a waste of time for all involved. If you are going to fight it, then fight it - Its your right to do so. But don't ask for validation and then whine when others disagree.

I think I was quite clear I was looking for help/advice to beat the ticket. That's what this thread is about... Why do I complain when people post what I SHOULD'VE done instead of what I SHOULD NOW do? Because it's not relevant? I'm on step 4 and people are telling me how terrible of a taxpayer I am because I somehow fucked up steps 2 and 3...

I'm very much listening and reading all the good advice, but "just pay the ticket" or "dude it's not much money" are not critical explanations.

[phil98z24]

Here are two things from the other side, as it were, that may answer your question:

1) They post in the major roadways coming into the city (municipality) as required by law. They have also done disclosure through the city website, and they don't have to mention specific sites. They probably got you on Memorial Drive, I assume? Which is considered a thoroughfare, and I don't think it counts in terms of community type enforcement. As well, the definition of municipality can be found in Municipal Government Act:

"Municipality” means
(i) a city, town, village, summer village, municipal
district or specialized municipality,

I see what you're saying, but you're misinterpreting the law. It doesn't apply to communities.

2) I've seen this defense tried before, and the PO operating the camera was incredibly articulate and easily shot it down. In your defense, it's a really good idea and I actually think it would work in maybe a smaller town, but Calgary relies on this revenue and they have this wired tight. I just don't see them screwing this up.

[Mibz]

Originally posted by phil98z24
Here are two things from the other side, as it were, that may answer your question:

1) They post in the major roadways coming into the city (municipality) as required by law. They have also done disclosure through the city website, and they don't have to mention specific sites. They probably got you on Memorial Drive, I assume? Which is considered a thoroughfare, and I don't think it counts in terms of community type enforcement. As well, the definition of municipality can be found in Municipal Government Act:

"Municipality” means
(i) a city, town, village, summer village, municipal
district or specialized municipality,

I see what you're saying, but you're misinterpreting the law. It doesn't apply to communities.

2) I've seen this defense tried before, and the PO operating the camera was incredibly articulate and easily shot it down. In your defense, it's a really good idea and I actually think it would work in maybe a smaller town, but Calgary relies on this revenue and they have this wired tight. I just don't see them screwing this up.

I missed you, Phil. Thanks for popping by to clear this up.