theiceman

its so unCanadian not to end a thread with an apology !

Well done Doc.

Christien

Don't argue that point. 100% of the time the judge will side with the police when the defendant says "I wasn't going that fast". It's only going to hurt your credibility. When it's your word against a cop's, the cop will win 100% of the time in traffic court. Find another approach: was the radar gun recently calibrated? Was the officer properly trained in its use? Spoiler alert: you're going to lose on all these points. Not trying to be a d!ck, just being honest. It's a rigged system, and the whole "innocent until proven guilty" deal simply doesn't apply in traffic court. The judge is only there because you have a charter right to a trial. If you can't find a technicality (like those I mentioned, or the trial took too long, or the officer doesn't show - another spoiler alert: they always show) then you'll be stuck pleaing down to a lesser amount. Having fought my share of tickets, if you go in there and say "no way I was going that speed" the judge will not take anything else you say seriously.

Have you got your disclosure yet? You're entitled to a copy of the cop's notes and any evidence they plan on bringing against you at trial, but I believe you only have a limited amount of time to make the request, so if you haven't, you should asap.

Roberto T

Totally agreed with you. It's a lost cause if its my word against his. I just hope he is a no show for court, has poor records or doesn't provide disclosure. Just requested disclosure..... hopefully it never arrives!

Christien

When they start donating ticket revenue to charities, I'll believe it's about safety. Until then, I believe it's a racket.

Torontoworker

Well, I'll see you and raise this one: Government want everyone to stop smoking from a public health issue. So they state they are raising taxes on tobacco to curb its use. When they donate 100% of these taxes to cancer research/treatment I'll believe them instead of it being the cash grab we all know that it is...

Sir5n

theiceman

I think they don't hide its a cash grab anymore ..

In fact the mayor of Hamilton told his police chief he needed 50,000 tickets that year as they needed the money ! do you remember that Christien ?

BlueBob

It would be interesting to understand the costs of having and running police car(s), the cost of the required personnel (salaries, benefits) involved, related court system costs and whatever other costs there are.

I could be wrong, but I'd guess the insurance company benefits far more than the government. :P

Christien

Well, what's a cop's average hourly wage? $30/hour? Even $40? Let's double that for associated vehicle costs. I'll bet less than 10% of traffic tickets go to court, so let's even triple that to be safe. So if it costs $90-$120/hour to run a speed patrol, by the time they write their second ticket they're making money. I'm sure they can do 5 or 6 tickets and hour. That's a lot of money.

cstyles

Definitely agree on that point. A few years ago I was driving on the hamilton mountain towards Juravinski hospital. The main road was closed for major construction and traffic was re-routed through the adjacent subdivision. A complete mess of one way streets with no logical layout that NO ONE would ever drive through unless the main road was closed and a detour in place. I came upon a 4 way stop where on my side it was a two way street. To the left was a 2 way street. To the right was a two way street. Straight through the stop sign? A one way street going opposite direction of my travel. Signed but poorly... And of course, a Hamilton copper 100 meters up that one way street taking advantage of the detour and drivers unfamiliar with the area.

$1,600 ticket.

Well the ticket was actually only a hundred bucks. Losing my conviction-free discount on my insurance cost me $500 per year for three years.

BlueBob

Yeah, I'd say the guesstimate is good, even considering avg cop is making >100k in GTA+benefits+pension. At that point, I'd say that they probably let one person off with a warning per hour, and most people are getting the $50 ticket (15 over) in Ontario - since that's no points, and unlikely to be disputed. Even at 19 over its ~$63.

So while the govt is making a few hundred per hour, the insurance company is making the real money, several thousand per hour. (Say on average $500/yr increase for next 3 years.)

With photo radar, speeding would stop (in radar zones), and the cops and insurance wouldn't make a dime this way. Safety? Just sayin'.

Christien

I was told they got rid of photo radar back in the early 90s because someone fought it on a charter challenge - something about having the right to face your accuser in court. No idea if that's true or not.

Personally, I've just got over it. Traffic tickets are a racket, that sucks, but it's not going away, and countless people with more legal skills than me have tried to fight it and lost, so I consider it a lost cause. Accept and move on.

Torontoworker

The actual threat was the ambulance chancing liability industry doing access requests for all crashes causing death and injuries by drunk drivers on highways with camera's installed. It was the Governments own lawyers that were afraid of lawsuits over this issue. They could already picture the mess of litigation where these lawyers get disclosure and pictures of the DWI car are captured on film *before* the crash into other cars. The Government would be in the position that they would have to prove that camera's were NOT a revenue tool and the removal of patrols was NOT a cost saving measure. The data would be shown in court showing pre camera era traffic stops where impaired drivers were identified and arrested with and post camera era and the number of DWI drivers stopped. It would be hard to convince juries if this data showed a 50% reduction in patrols or manned radar units that *could* have chased down a speeding car or weaving car and stopped a tragic incident because that officer smelled alcohol or observed some sort of impairment. As of late summer we now will be adding weed into the equation.

Recall that the Rae Government began the photo radar experiment by changing the HTA without fully thinking through the ramifications of using a contracted civilian in a van that could not stop a vehicle being driven dangerously. It was under Harris that a review was done and they saw the liability/PR issue. Later the HTA was amended that allowed 'Red Light' photo units as a way to stop light running but specifically not for speeding.

The current Provincial Government (soon to die) wants to replicate Rae's error by 'allowing' photo radar in the HTA again - but only for municipalities to use as a 'tool' to prevent speeding in school zones. This is cover to allow a local Government a new revenue making tool so that the Provincial Government doesn't have to increase funding to municipalities. It is also a very bad idea from the previously mentioned liability issue that now a Municipality would be exposed to. As most Municipalities fund their own police departments - the lawsuits would begin there. I've heard area's of the Province such as small towns that contract with the OPP for policing services have been told that photo radar is not an option as far as they are concerned. This is why you won't see photo radar on the 407 or Provincial highways but *may* see it on the Gardner, Don Valley or city streets.

Government seem to want to get out of the business of providing services but of course - not lowering taxes. I call it the banking model: Self serve - no reduction in fees. Already we see some harebrained idea of not allowing access to court to fight HTA offenses - you would have to attend an arbitrator hearing if you wished to fight a ticket which they already make difficult with personal appearances to make appointments. An arbitrator appointed and paid by the Government by the way... All this in order to close Provincial Offenses Courthouses, eliminate police court duty payments and kill overtime. Anyone see an issue here? They want to reduce expenses yet increase the chances of convictions. Of course the insurance industry back this plan as even ONE minor ticket such as 12 over can cost you a hundred dollars plus per year depending on the company.

None of these Provincial ideas on vehicle safety are FOR safety - its revenue.

theiceman

It went sway as a harris platform promise. Its That simple. Has never been seen again
No one will touch it as its political death to bring it back