[Peepers]

Looking at the first two pictures it appears to me that the time stamp and speed indicated are the same.

The time shown appears to be 14:52 in each photo and the speed 30 km.

Obviously it is impossible for both pictures to have been taken at the exact same instant which raises the question where exactly was the car when the speed and time was recorded? You could argue that the speed was recorded just prior to reaching the stop line since the photo's provided clearly contradict each other.

They have not provided any photographic evidence that you went through a red light - also there is no proof that you failed to come to a complete stop before making a right-hand turn at the red light.

You should absolutely file a notice that you will be appealing this ticket. After doing so I would send correspondence directly to the crown prosecutor asking that the ticket be withdrawn since it is patently in error and you should not have to waste you time making a court appearance for something issued in error.

Good luck!

 

[Hank]

It depends on the JP!

My father was nabbed by one of these once and I was in his car at the time. It was winter, during a snowstorm. He was driving me to work. He hit the brakes for a light that just turned yellow and the car simply did not stop but just slid right into the intersection. It turned out to be a red light camera intersection. Sure enough, a ticket arrived in the mail three months later (this was in Hamilton, so of course it took that long!) He challenged it and was assigned a court date six months later (again, Hamilton!) Even though the pictures clearly show the brake lights on in each shot, and even though the road is covered in snow and even though there were visible skid marks in the snow and even though the car was literally stopped and sideways in the middle of the intersection, the JP just said: "Well you were obviously driving too fast to stop for the conditions, so the ticket stands."

The onus is always on the driver to drive safely for the conditions. If your father couldn't stop in time to avoid sliding into the intersection, he was driving too quickly and the JP was legally correct not to throw out the ticket. That being said, from talking to people in similar situations a lot of JPs probably would throw it out, so you're right it's largely the luck of the draw (JPs aren't generally the sharpest knives in the legal drawer in any respect, so even for more serious cases the results are often completely based on the JP rather than the law).

Looking at the first two pictures it appears to me that the time stamp and speed indicated are the same.

The time shown appears to be 14:52 in each photo and the speed 30 km.

Obviously it is impossible for both pictures to have been taken at the exact same instant which raises the question where exactly was the car when the speed and time was recorded? You could argue that the speed was recorded just prior to reaching the stop line since the photo's provided clearly contradict each other.

They have not provided any photographic evidence that you went through a red light - also there is no proof that you failed to come to a complete stop before making a right-hand turn at the red light.

You should absolutely file a notice that you will be appealing this ticket. After doing so I would send correspondence directly to the crown prosecutor asking that the ticket be withdrawn since it is patently in error and you should not have to waste you time making a court appearance for something issued in error.

Good luck!

I agree that the pictures should show the second as well as the hour and minute, but I don't think this argument is going anywhere. When I was caught in a similar situation the first picture didn't show a speed at all for whatever reason, and the second showed my car turning right with a speed of 30 kph. When I spoke with the prosecutor she basically just said that even if my car was stopped in the first picture, it couldn't have got up to 30 kph in the time between the two pictures. I'm not sure what the physics of the situation actually were, but if I'd gone to court I thought that it was fairly likely that the JP would agree with her, so I just settled at the initial meeting.

Also, assuming that the pictures were taken a set time apart (two seconds, or whatever...I'm sure that information is available somewhere), they do prove that the car went through the red light (unless it was driving backwards, I suppose...which I guess is a possibility).

All that being said, it's certainly worth it to challenge the ticket for the same reason that it's worth it to challenge any ticket: the crown will give you a deal just for showing up (for red-light cameras you can't hope that the officer doesn't show up to court like you can with regular speeding tickets, but you'll almost definitely be able to get a better deal just by meeting with the crown ahead of time). I've never really understood why people are rewarded for clogging up our court system, but I've taken advantage of it a few times myself.

 

[SP!RE]

Of course you have to come to a complete stop before making a right turn on a red light. What do you think the red light means? Where the f#$king hell are people getting their driver's licenses from nowadays? Didn't you have to take a driver's test?

+1

 

[guyjunior]

red light mistake

it looks like the car making a left turn was the vehicle that set off the camera , they sent you probly because they did not get the plate of the car turning left , it only makes sense as you are turning right I also saw a few other sites on disputing these tickets. this seems like another money grab , I would fight it you are stopped only car in intersection is completing a left turn and you are stopped you should fight this, print the pics take with you, good luck....

Hi there,

Darn it!! I got a Red light camera offence notice yesterday. I know that this is gotta be a mistake. Just take a look at the 2nd picture. They only have a picture of me stop behind the line (1 st picture). 2nd picture doesn't even have my car in it. How can they say I crossed the light and went into intersection when the light was red? Don't they need to have a picture of my car crossed the line and went into the intersection???

The form is 5.1. Is this the old form? Shouldn't it be form 5? Someone here said that the Good Government Act 2009 will take effect in January 3, 2012. It just took in effect. The date of my violation in December 24, 2011.

Here are the pictures:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/69 ... 634oh.jpg/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/dsc09635d.jpg/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/252/dsc09636n.jpg/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/717/dsc09637x.jpg/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/408/dsc09638x.jpg/

Please help? I just had a newborn and $325 can go to a lot of diapers and formula. I know this is a mistake because I remember exactly that day I went to Canadian Tire and on that particular intersection I turned right on the traffic light to reach Canadian Tire. You can see that my brake lights and turning light is on. Let's say if they argue that the reason of the camera didn't capture my car on the 2nd picture is because of my speed. My speed was registered at 30km/h! The notice shows that I approached the the intersection at which time the signal had displayed red for 001.5 seconds and that the vehicle proceeded through the intersection when the light had been red for 003.3 seconds. Does it make sense?

Someone here also mentioned that the photo has to show street names, and as you can see you do not see street names. But the most important thing is they don't have prove of me crossing the red light (no evidence of crossing on the 2nd picture).

 

[annwal]

Not many motorists are happy with red-light cameras -- the law-enforcement gadgets that snap a picture of you and your license plate if you are caught in an intersection when the light turns red. Many feel the devices are more about raising municipal revenues than they are about making the roads better. With those unhappy motorists as possible consumers, two items have been separately intended to bust the photo-busters at their own game. One is currently available. The other seeks extra seed cash.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Stand at many intersections, both stop-signed and traffic signalled, you will see many, many, many right-turn vehicles not stopping. Not counting bicycles, electric wheelchairs, and pedestrians.

 

[malvern2]

Got one of these last year, met with the prosecutor to make a deal, he reduced the fine to $80…probably your best option here.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Crashes double at Houston intersections after red light cameras pulled


From this link:

Auto crashes more than doubled at busy Houston intersections after red light cameras were pulled from those areas, according to figures released by the Houston Police Department.

The controversial network of cameras installed at 50 high-risk intersections was taken down after it was defeated in a November 2010 referendum, halting an estimated $10 million in annual revenue to HPD. After the vote, the city filed a lawsuit against American Traffic Solutions, based in Arizona, to settle a breach of the camera contract, and eventually agreed to reimburse ATS $4.8 million for early termination.

Supporters of the camera system expressed concern that accidents at the once-monitored intersections would increase without the cameras, and HPD statistics show an increase of 117 percent over the last four years. While the cameras were in operation from 2006-2010, HPD reported 4,100 crashes at those intersections followed by almost 9,000 crashes during the next four years without camera, including a 30 percent increase in fatal collisions.

However, HPD's data did not show traffic counts over time at the monitored intersections.

The traffic numbers were part of an HPD staff presentation to the city council's Public Safety Committee Tuesday morning. HPD is also proposing a "Strategic Growth Plan" that over the next five years would require a projected $105 million to pay the salaries and equipment of 540 additional officers.

 

[Tuscani01]

Of course you have to come to a complete stop before making a right turn on a red light. What do you think the red light means? Where the f#$king hell are people getting their driver's licenses from nowadays? Didn't you have to take a driver's test?

Funny, yesterday I noticed someone on twitter commenting to Toronto Police about parking in front of fire hydrants, or at the corner of intersections.

They asked Toronto Police why there are no signs indicating that you cannot park in front of a hydrant or near an intersection.

My response was pretty much the same as yours.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Stand at many intersections, both stop-signed and traffic signalled, you will see many, many, many right-turn vehicles not stopping. Not counting bicycles, electric wheelchairs, and pedestrians.

And this is where police need to be. Go to Manhattan and you see a cop on nearly every corner. We might not have the budget for that, but it would certainly pay for itself if sufficient fines were enforced for failure to stop violations.

 

[nfitz]

And this is where police need to be. Go to Manhattan and you see a cop on nearly every corner.

On nearly every corner? I can't say I've seen this. I've seen perhaps more cops than I'd expect on a handful of major arteries - 5th Avenue. Broadway. But there's so many pedestrians around, no one is failing to turn without stopping! And quite helpful and friendly the are too!

But I certainly haven't seen it on most streets, let alone nearly every corner!

 

[urbanoverview]

Didn't even know these exist in Toronto. Thought they stopped using them.

 

[nfitz]

Didn't even know these exist in Toronto. Thought they stopped using them.

Police? No, still a few around.

Or red-light cameras? http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/c...nnel=17324074781e1410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

 

[Michael1985]

In November last year I had a situation with getting tagged by a red light camera. I was getting off at the morning side exit from 401 west. I was driving through and it turned yellow before my car approached the white line. The thing is though the roads were slippery because of the ice on the road. If I stopped suddenly I would have skid through, I made a decision to just keep driving through. I got a fine in the mail with the pictures. I was told by a friend to just pay it because red light camera tickets are ridiculously hard to fight. Luckily for me I was recommended Gerald who is a traffic lawyer in the North York area. I told him about the case and he said he could get it dropped. He made the argument about the road conditions and how not stopping was the right choice.

 

[blixtex]

In November last year I had a situation with getting tagged by a red light camera. I was getting off at the morning side exit from 401 west. I was driving through and it turned yellow before my car approached the white line. The thing is though the roads were slippery because of the ice on the road. If I stopped suddenly I would have skid through, I made a decision to just keep driving through. I got a fine in the mail with the pictures. I was told by a friend to just pay it because red light camera tickets are ridiculously hard to fight. Luckily for me I was recommended Gerald who is a traffic lawyer in the North York area. I told him about the case and he said he could get it dropped. He made the argument about the road conditions and how not stopping was the right choice.

So it did get dropped? First I've heard of that for a red light photo ticket.

Curious, I live around the area and don't see a camera off the exit. The closest one I see is on Morningside northbound intersecting Milner (the street leading to the Home Depot).