“66 In A Permanently-posted 40 Kph Zone/csz”

I was recently ticketed in Barrie in a pemanently-posted 40 kph zone. It is possibly the only permanently-posted 40 kph zone in the entire jurisdiction (the rest being time-of-day enforced around schools etc) so, not surprisingly, its also a posted CSZ. The reading was taken with a LIDAR measurement device and I was shown the device display 1st thing upon stopping road-side. Upon running my numbers, the officer would have seen that my 30+ year-old driving record is very good and DEFINITELY not-indicative of habitual speeding and/or reckless driving. He none the less issued a ticket, seemingly for the maximum permissible fine. I've lived nearby for 10+ years and am not opposed to the existence of the zone I was stopped in nor its close supervision, as I have two younger children who will soon begin traveling on their own around the neighborhood etc. Although the issuing officer identified himself as a full-time traffic cop (and thus will likely show in-court if-needed) I plan on choosing option 3 and fighting the ticket as I like many others am concerned about the black eye on my otherwise-good record , insurance rates etc. As I tick off the "Option 3" box on my ticket, and prepare to mail it to court (is that a good idea?) was hoping someone could answer a couple of questions regarding the ticket itself and possible arguments/defences I am considering.

1. Although my ticket doesn't seem to indicate such and, since the issuing officer said nothing about, it appears I may be on the hook for Demerits, if the fine sticks. How can I find out?

2. Does the HTA rule on the requirements for, and deployment of. roadside traffic signs? Is it a requirement that all Reduced Speed Zones (RSZ's) be additionally-signed with "Reduced Speed Ahead" (RSA) warning signs on the approaches? Although I can imagine it would be fiscally-beneficial for municipalities to not warn drivers of RSZ's, based on the ensuing increase in speed fines that would likely be handed out, I would think the safety issue alone (i,.e. drivers hammering on brakes as they frantically try to slow down upon entering an RSZ they were not warned about) would be sufficient cause for making RSA signs mandatory. Based on what I've seen elsewhere around Barrie and, as nice as the folks up here might be, I doubt the City would waste taxpayer's money installing RSA signs on the approaches of virtually all their other RSZ's, unless they were required to (as indeed it appears they have). Likely outcome if I'm successful in arguing the RSZ I was ticketed in, is non-compliant?

3. Using info from Google Streetview I can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the issuing officer had line-of-sight to my vehicle while I was still in a 50 kph posted speed zone, well before I entered the CSZ and the 40 kph speed zone. Coupling that with info I obtained from the City of Barrie official website, I'm able to establish that the advance line-of-sight distance was at-least 100m and that 10 secs or more would likely have elapsed before I in-fact entered the area where I purpotedly sped. Do I have a snowball's chance of arguing that the issuing officer could have acquired/recorded my speed outside the 40 kph zone and the CSZ? Other than verbal rebuttal (his word against mine) would the officer likely have indisputable evidence he could produce, to definitively argue away that possibility? If not, is the possibility alone, enough to justify reasonable doubt? If the judge/JP buys it, do I risk getting fined instead for 66 in a 50 zone, and no CSZ? And what about the Demerits I possibly stood to get?

4. It turns out that, just before being pulled over, I had stopped at a business approx 150 m from the beginning of the CSZ/40 zone and, moments before I alegedly sped, I had in-fact just entered the roadway from that business's parking lot (i.e. standing start). I drive a 100 hp 4-cylinder compact car with 200k milleage, so it doesn't take an expert to understand that I would litterally have to stand on the accelerator for the whole 150m run-up to the beginning of the CSZ/40 zone, in order just to get to 66 kph (and yes I did go back and test/confirm this theory when the cops weren't watching). Shortly after checking my speed (my car jumps into 3rd at almost exactly 50 kph and I instinctively lay off the accelerator when I'm on city streets) I distinctly remember seeing up in the distance, the issuing officer walking into the street in my path (presumably preparing to flag me down). Indeed I can't be sure if I had even yet entered the 40 kph zone which. I suppose, plays into the officer having captured my speed "prematurely" as in point (3) above, and that much time, possibly 15 to 20 secs, elapsed before I finally arrived where the officer stood. In-fact at the moment the issuing officer walked out into the roadway, I was still so far away that I had no idea who he was (using an unmarked cruiser and wearing a non-descript safety vest over his jacket); Because he didn't have his hat on (no reasons I could find why so) it wasn't until I was practically at roadside that I could tell. He did not put his hat on nor did he make any attempt to further identify himself as a police officer prior to or after flagging me down.

The business I stopped at is very low-key and although I did make a purchcase, I did not receive a receipt or anything with a time-stamp. The best I could come up with is a letter signed by the shop owner, claiming that he had served me at approx 9:30 that morning. The speeding ticket shows about 10 mins later however with the time it took officer to flag me down & process me etc, I'm hoping it would stll look legit. I had considered using a closer time in the letter however that would likely make mine and the shopkeeper's stories look less and less believable to the judge/JP.

Sorry for being so long-winded but wanted to be clear on what happened and hopefully get good advice on which defence I should use. As I am a newbie and have never fought a ticket (always a 1st time for everything I suppose) any advice on how to handle the big event would be appreciated (including whether I should even fight it or not). Cheers- rayin Barrie

1) Demerit points aren't listed on tickets. For 26 over you'd receive 3 points. You'd need to get it reduced to 15 or less for no points.

2) I don't believe there's any requirement for advanced notice, but can't remember for certain. That would probably be covered by the HTA regulation dealing with signs: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/r ... g-615.html

3) A lidar device will record the distance at which the reading was obtained. Request disclosure and review the officer's notes. Hopefully he'll have recorded the distance and where he obtained the reading from. That should be able to confirm if you were in the 40 km/hr zone or not. Do NOT rely on Google Streetview imagery, you won't be able to use that as evidence in Court.

4) I don't see how stopping at the store is relevant to your defence. You admit your vehicle is capable of obtaining that speed, just that you're not in the habit of driving that fast.

Thanks Stanton,

How do I request disclosure? Will this info be available to me before I go to Traffic Court? If the issuing officer did not record the Lidar distance stamp in his notes, are my chances any better of raising sufficient reasonable doubt regarding whether he acquired my speed inside the 40 zone? If I can't use Streetview imagery to prove line of sight beyond the boundaries of the 40 zone, would the City of Barrie interactive map info (which has a distance measurement tool) likely be disallowed as-well? I have to say I'm also a bit sceptical of how the officer new exactly how far the 40 kph sign was from his cruiser's location, and thus how "close" he had to allow me to get before locking in my reading.

Sounds like the missing Reduced Speed Ahead sign is not a strong argument, but I'll have a look at the HTA section you sent me the link to, thanks for the tip.

Ok so my car might achieve 66 kph in 150m from a near-standing start, if I absolutely burry the throttle. If the judge/JP buys my claim that I was coming from the store's parking lot en-route to receiving my ticket, and even though he/she knows its unlikely I was hard-accelerating all the way to the beginning of the 40 kph zone, how can I convince him/her of that?

rayinbarrie wrote:Thanks Stanton,

Ok so my car might achieve 66 kph in 150m from a near-standing start, if I absolutely burry the throttle. If the judge/JP buys my claim that I was coming from the store's parking lot en-route to receiving my ticket, and even though he/she knows its unlikely I was hard-accelerating all the way to the beginning of the 40 kph zone, how can I convince him/her of that?

This argument comes up all the time, "I drive "X" car and therefore can can't be speeding", or "My car can't accelerate that fast be cause it is a (fill in the blank)".

You say you were at a "Near" standing start which means you were already moving, albeit slow. If we now assume you were completely stopped (adjusting in your favour) then to accelerate to 66 km/h within 150m (assuming constant acceleration) would have taken you about 16.5 seconds..... doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.... in fact it seems rather slow even with the description of your car. This is also assuming that the officer got his reading on your car the exact moment you got to the 40 km/h zone (unlikely), and your guess of 150m is relatively accurate. It is more likely that you were caught after entering the zone and had even more time and distance to accelerate. If you really did take that long to get to the speed of 66 km/h, I certainly hope you don't take your car on any 400 series highways, I would probably consider you a hazard trying to merge with traffic since you likely wouldn't even make it to highway speed before the end of the merge lane by your estimation.

Also I commend you on having a 15-20 second eye lead while driving (having seen the officer step out onto the road 15-20 seconds before you arrived at him). That isn't normal for most people on the road. I would be surprised if they were between 3 and 5 seconds the way most drive.

As for disclosure, you need to contact the prosecutors office at the court house listed on the back of your ticket. Make sure you do it right away it can take some time to receive if the request has to be sent to the Officer. Not sure about Barrie but here in Toronto the time set by the court is a 6 - 8 week turn around. There is a good chance it will be ready before this but they set that length due to Officer schedule and holidays.

Passing Thru wrote:

rayinbarrie wrote:Thanks Stanton,

Ok so my car might achieve 66 kph in 150m from a near-standing start, if I absolutely burry the throttle. If the judge/JP buys my claim that I was coming from the store's parking lot en-route to receiving my ticket, and even though he/she knows its unlikely I was hard-accelerating all the way to the beginning of the 40 kph zone, how can I convince him/her of that?

This argument comes up all the time, "I drive "X" car and therefore can can't be speeding", or "My car can't accelerate that fast be cause it is a (fill in the blank)".

You say you were at a "Near" standing start which means you were already moving, albeit slow. If we now assume you were completely stopped (adjusting in your favour) then to accelerate to 66 km/h within 150m (assuming constant acceleration) would have taken you about 16.5 seconds..... doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.... in fact it seems rather slow even with the description of your car. This is also assuming that the officer got his reading on your car the exact moment you got to the 40 km/h zone (unlikely), and your guess of 150m is relatively accurate. It is more likely that you were caught after entering the zone and had even more time and distance to accelerate. If you really did take that long to get to the speed of 66 km/h, I certainly hope you don't take your car on any 400 series highways, I would probably consider you a hazard trying to merge with traffic since you likely wouldn't even make it to highway speed before the end of the merge lane by your estimation.

Also I commend you on having a 15-20 second eye lead while driving (having seen the officer step out onto the road 15-20 seconds before you arrived at him). That isn't normal for most people on the road. I would be surprised if they were between 3 and 5 seconds the way most drive.

As for disclosure, you need to contact the prosecutors office at the court house listed on the back of your ticket. Make sure you do it right away it can take some time to receive if the request has to be sent to the Officer. Not sure about Barrie but here in Toronto the time set by the court is a 6 - 8 week turn around. There is a good chance it will be ready before this but they set that length due to Officer schedule and holidays.

Thanks "Passing Through"

Just wanted to say 1st that I'm very grateful for the info I receive in this forum. I just realized that I haven't said much in-way of appreciation until now and wanted to avoid coming off like some conceited a$$ just out to save his own skin.

OK so the "my car won't go that fast" argument likely won't get me anywhere- check. By the way Phil Edmunston once described my car model's factory-spec acceleration as being "glacial", so while its perhaps not that bad as you claim, its evidently not that great either. Funny you should mention 400 series hwy on-ramps, since that's by-far where I get flipped the bird most-often.

Re the absence of a Reduced Speed Zone Ahead sign on the approach to the 40 kph zone I was ticketed in, I admit to not having had much luck finding a smoking gun in the HTA. Why then, as I have lamented before, would a municipality spend taxpayer's money equipping all their other Reduced Speed Zones with such signs, if they were not obligated to? Just because they're being nice guys? Seems to be something I'm not getting, here.

Based on my ever-decreasing chances of a successful acquital if going to trial, I am now considering choosing Option 2 on my ticket ("Pleading Guilty WIth Explanation") and taking my chances with obtaining a plea-bargain down to 1-15 over, no points, and double the money due to the CSZ (and frankly who CARES about the money if I avoid the points!). Apparently the issuing officer will not attend such a hearing (is it open-court setting or something more discreet?) so I like my chances better that way. I take it that a Court appearance still has to occur, and that the plea-bargain has to be vetted by the officiant before its a done deal. If, in the mean time, I find huge holes in the officer's notes (via disclosure) or if he doesn't show on my Court date, do I have the option of killing my own deal and trying for an acquittal, if I think my chances are better that-way? Is it possible the judge/JP may forget a plea-bargain was ever agreed-to and reinstate my original violation? I just want to be very careful about bite-back if I get too greedy.

Oh, and, thanks for the comment about my being an above-average defensive driver (15-20 sec eye-lead). I realize this is not a forum to discuss driving habits, however I can't believe most wouldn't start noticing people walking out on the road in front of their cars, even that far ahead. Unfortunately it may have even worked against me in this case, as I sensed that, once I arrived at his location, the police officer seemed frustrated/fed-up/bored of having been made to wait that long. Perhaps he thought I had begun slowing down prematurely out of guilt, and that I was delaying/puting off the innevitable. In-fact I had no idea until I was almost upon him that he was a police officer, not that it would have made any dif (I'm just not in the habit of mowing pedestrians down with my front bumper).

Cheers, rayinbarrie

rayinbarrie wrote:I realize this is not a forum to discuss driving habits, however I can't believe most wouldn't start noticing people walking out on the road in front of their cars, even that far ahead.

Actually, this IS a forum where driving habits can be discussed (see the "General" section).

Anyway... I'd still recommend choosing option 3. If you choose "guilty with an explanation," you are pleading guilty to the original speed and charge. If you choose option 3, this is where you can try to plea bargain with the Prosecutor for a lower speed/fine.

You might find the sample disclosure form mentioned here http://www.ticketcombat.com/sitesearch.php listed under sample forms. In fact the entire site is excellent and worthwhile going through in its entirety. If you decide to do that, make sure you follow the forward arrows at the bottom of each page not just the tabs on top.

Option 3 is the way to go. At worst you can negotiate a deal with the prosecution when you go to trial (they always offered a deal during the times I wen to observe court which I strongly suggest you do as well as it is a great way to prepare for your own case) and at best the officer won't show and your charge will be dismissed.

Re demerit points. Your insurance likely won't care about demerit points but they will count each traffic violation. Demerit points stay on your record for 2 years http://www.ontario.ca/driving-and-roads ... rit-points but traffic ticket with your insurance longer, I believe 3 and police can access it for years. Many people are concerned about demerits but unless you're notorious for traffic violations they're not as critical as people think.

Thanks R.I. and Pepsi

Being 7 days away from my 15-days-to-respond deadline, do you recommend I now forget mailing in and just go in-person to the Prov Off Court offices listed on my ticket? Will I be able to fill out any forms ahead of time (i.e. Disclosure form Pepsi pointed me to) to avoid having to re-queue when I'm there etc or do I just have to spend the time it takes filling everything in-situ?

Thanks Pepsi for the tip on attending Traffic Court as a bystander, to get insight. Most people wouldn't bother and, even if they wanted to, many more wouldn't have the luxury of time (fortunately I can likely swing it). Will I need to provide/show anything to be allowed in (i.e. a copy of my ticket)?

Cheers, rayinbarrie

Dear helpful posters,

I realize now that I can only request disclosure after initially choosing Option 3 and subsequently receiving a court appearance date.

Questions:

1. Does a violation that is eventually withdrawn by the prosecution (i.e. issuing officer doesn't show etc) stay on the offender's driving record, for any definite period of time (that-is-to-say, the record which a then-prosecutor would see if such offender were to end up back in traffic court weeks/months/years later)?

2. On a roadside-reduced speeding ticket, will my record still show (i.e. will a prosecutor see) what the initial speed violation was?

2. I had a prior minor in 2005 which I settled by choosing then-available "Option 4", where an offender, after paying a higher fine than that carried by the infraction (but less than a paralegal) and being made to sit through "traffic school", seemingly had his or her ticket thrown out. I am learning via this forum that tickets cannot necessarilly diappear so easilly. Does anyone out there know how that option actually worked, and if in-fact the infraction probably remains on my record?

rayinbarrie wrote:1. Does a violation that is eventually withdrawn by the prosecution (i.e. issuing officer doesn't show etc) stay on the offender's driving record, for any definite period of time (that-is-to-say, the record which a then-prosecutor would see if such offender were to end up back in traffic court weeks/months/years later)?

No. An offence that you are not convicted (or plead guilty to) of does not go on your driving record or driver abstract.

rayinbarrie wrote:2. On a roadside-reduced speeding ticket, will my record still show (i.e. will a prosecutor see) what the initial speed violation was?

The officer's notes will, and the Prosecutor will have reviewed them and talked to the officer before the court date. Sometimes, the officer can put "R" in the code box on the ticket, but they don't have to.

rayinbarrie wrote:3. I had a prior minor in 2005 which I settled by choosing then-available "Option 4", where an offender, after paying a higher fine than that carried by the infraction (but less than a paralegal) and being made to sit through "traffic school", seemingly had his or her ticket thrown out. I am learning via this forum that tickets cannot necessarilly diappear so easilly. Does anyone out there know how that option actually worked, and if in-fact the infraction probably remains on my record?

Try calling MTO. Your driver abstract will only show the last 3 years of driving history, but they've got access to the whole database.

Thanks R.I.

Hopefully you &/or your collegues can help solve another mystery of mine as it involves a prior minor traffic offense I was charged with in 2010, and which will, because of its "recentness", likely get cited by the prosecutor who will be rebutting my "previously good driving record" defence (hoping to prove to JP of low risk to re-offend).

2 Days before Christmas 2010 (talk about timing) I was rear-vehicle in a low-speed rear-ender on the QEW. Based on such little damage to the other driver's vehicle, I initially offered to pay out of pocket however, when he began complaining of a stiff neck (he had initially said he was unhurt) I began figuring whatever extra insurance costs I might avoid would not be worth the risk of having to dish out additional and substantial compensation for a suspicious soft-tissue injury.

After reporting to the appropriate Collision Reporting Centre, I was charged/ticketed for following too close, and told that this was as good as it would likely get since the typical up-front charge is the much-more serious Careless Driving. Being a newbie and unaware of my rights and other options, I chose to join the 97% of charged drivers who just plead guilty and pay. Several months later I received my fine payment back from the municipality I had paid it to, with no explanation. My Insurance company later reported knowing of the incident, for which I was found at-fault. This would indicate a conviction which I gather, having been less than 3 years ago, would show up on an MTO abstract. However if indeed there was, why did I get my money back? Thanks for any help.

rayinbarrie wrote:Thanks R.I.

Hopefully you &/or your collegues can help solve another mystery of mine as it involves a prior minor traffic offense I was charged with in 2010, and which will, because of its "recentness", likely get cited by the prosecutor who will be rebutting my "previously good driving record" defence (hoping to prove to JP of low risk to re-offend).

2 Days before Christmas 2010 (talk about timing) I was rear-vehicle in a low-speed rear-ender on the QEW. Based on such little damage to the other driver's vehicle, I initially offered to pay out of pocket however, when he began complaining of a stiff neck (he had initially said he was unhurt) I began figuring whatever extra insurance costs I might avoid would not be worth the risk of having to dish out additional and substantial compensation for a suspicious soft-tissue injury.

After reporting to the appropriate Collision Reporting Centre, I was charged/ticketed for following too close, and told that this was as good as it would likely get since the typical up-front charge is the much-more serious Careless Driving. Being a newbie and unaware of my rights and other options, I chose to join the 97% of charged drivers who just plead guilty and pay. Several months later I received my fine payment back from the municipality I had paid it to, with no explanation. My Insurance company later reported knowing of the incident, for which I was found at-fault. This would indicate a conviction which I gather, having been less than 3 years ago, would show up on an MTO abstract. However if indeed there was, why did I get my money back? Thanks for any help.

That is odd, usually if you have been convicted they would keep your money or if there was something wrong with your payment they would send you a notice demanding that you correct the problem. It might be worth ordering a copy of your drivers abstract from MTO just to see what is on it, there is a service fee but then you would know for sure what was on there.

Might have been an error on the ticket or maybe it wasn't submitted. The insurance company could have simply found you at fault based on the accident report (which you would be in a rear ender). As stated above though, might be good to check and see what happened just to be sure.

rayinbarrie wrote:Thanks R.I. and Pepsi

Being 7 days away from my 15-days-to-respond deadline, do you recommend I now forget mailing in and just go in-person to the Prov Off Court offices listed on my ticket? Will I be able to fill out any forms ahead of time (i.e. Disclosure form Pepsi pointed me to) to avoid having to re-queue when I'm there etc or do I just have to spend the time it takes filling everything in-situ?

Thanks Pepsi for the tip on attending Traffic Court as a bystander, to get insight. Most people wouldn't bother and, even if they wanted to, many more wouldn't have the luxury of time (fortunately I can likely swing it). Will I need to provide/show anything to be allowed in (i.e. a copy of my ticket)?

Cheers, rayinbarrie

Rayinbarrie,

In Peel court anyone can observe proceedings and I believe these rules apply for the province. If in doubt, just call the number on the ticket and ask. You are correct that time is the main reason people don't do this but I found it worth the time even if it means wasting a vacation day. A couple of things to help keep time spent there to a minimum, again based on my experience in Peel court:

1. There are 2 sessions each day, 9 (or maybe 9:30am) and 1:30pm. Traffic cases are usually handled in the afternoon.

2. At the beginning of the session all the victims, I mean, offenders, lineup to see the prosecutor. That's when they are offered a deal.

3. Once everyone is processed the prosecution first handles the cases where the deal with guilty plea was accepted. This goes fairly fast.

4. Last to be called are the ones who refused the deal and opted for a trial. I went to court 5 times or so to observe and only once was there a case that was actually tried. Most people accept the deal.

Based on the above I would suggest you call the court to find out what time most traffic cases are tried and confirm that you can observe. Also make sure court will be working on the day you plan on going, I went one day to observe just to find out the entire court staff was on some sort of a retreat for the whole week.

Re reduced charge on the ticket, if you decide to go to trial ( I don't mean choosing option 3 on the ticket, even if you do that you can still chose to plead guilty later, I'm talking about stating you want a trial when your case comes to court) your reduced charge might be upped to the original. I wouldn't worry about it at this point however, the key is to chose option 3, bring the ticket to the court office and have them stamp it as filed. When you get the court date ask for disclosure and based on what you see decide whether or not you're willing to accept a deal when in court. When asking for disclosure make sure you ask at the minimum what ticketcombat suggests. Courts have their own forms that give you practically nothing so don't use those.

Good luck!

Thanks Pepsi and previous helpful Posters,

BTW and though I haven't ordered an MTO Abstract yet, it seems my Insurance probably counted my 2010 minor prior (which seemingly got thrown out as I got my entire paid fine refunded) simply because I made a claim through them for the repairs to my vehicle. Besides, as daggx advised, they (Insurance) may have have counted the matter by-default (rear car in rear-ender generally = guilty) despite the case seemingly being thrown out. Based on the unexpected ticket throw-out and the subsequent possible avoidance of being counted by my Insurance, I will, in the future, strongly consider paying out of pocket for any repair that I can somehow manage.

Thanks Pepsi for the insight into the Traffic Court process. A friend who went to TC for a similar ticket to mine about 6 months ago, pretty much echoed your observations (and to some degree your advice, though she was far more pro-plea-bargain after having watched a few trials from the previous session that-day which, presumably, all went in-favor of the Crown).

Indeed I will be requesting disclosure as its likely any evidence I can hope to hang an aquittal on, will be in the officer's notes. I admit that the issuing officer & I also had a roadside "chat" (the appropriateness of the zone in its current location and, perhaps more so, a police enforcement net which has been cast, perhaps, just a little too widely, have been bones of contention as of-late in local media). So I will also be interested in knowing whether the officer labelled me as a trouble-maker, as that will surely also come back to bite me in Court, no-doubt at the most inoportune time.

Question: Will the fact my infraction occured in a CSZ somehow influence the "degree" of the lesser-charge that the Crown likely offers me pre-trial? I did not see on this site where the CSZ infraction would bring Demerits but, if it does, I'm concerned that the Crown might subsequently be compelled to offer me less of a deal. Thanks again for the great advice.