“Hta 144 (14)”

So this is what happened:

I was busy looking for something in my car on a left turn lane. I didnt know there was a car behind me, and the light only shows the left turn signal if more than 2 cars are in that left turn lane.

The signal lights the left turn sign, and i did not see it. A police car is behind me and is the second car. he honks and i see that it was a green arrow signalling me to turn left. I accelerate, and the arrow turns yellow. As i finish my turn it was red, and the police car pulls me over giving me an HTA 144 (14) Ticket. His reason is that I did not proceed as directed on a green arrow when i did.

Can anyone tell me if i have any chances?

Also, Because i could not find my permit in the car (it was in the car but i couldnt find it at the time) he also wrote me a ticket. If i were to go to court for the HTA 144 (14) will i also have to take the permit ticket to court as well? Meaning, do i have to battle both tickets or can i show my permit and get the permit ticket discharged and fight the signal ticket?

Traffic control signals and pedestrian control signals

(14) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing one or more green arrow indications only or in combination with a circular red or circular amber indication and facing the indication may proceed only to follow the direction shown by the arrow. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (14).

Well you were booked in the right circumstances...

Lets see what others have to say about this one.

You will have to challenge both tickets.

One is obvious...Fail to surrender permit.....this is immediately upon demand of a police officer....either you surrender it when asked or not

I am Not saying the officer is wrong, but my interpretation of 144(14) is when a vehicle is at a traffic control device (traffic lights) and the lights are multi functional (red, yellow, green and green arrow)....and the light is showing red and green arrow can be shown to direct vehicles in a certain direction......and only at this time while the green arrow is lit, all other vehicles are not allowed to move....including anyone turning right on a solid red can not do so!

**Most instances the green arrow is timed with a green arrow with the oncoming traffic.....turning traffic left from both directions, therefore would want the right hand turning people to remain stopped***

I too am curious as to how this ends up...good luck...maybe there is case law about this situation somewhere that you can find

Understood but I dropped and was looking for something in the vehicle. I had my seatbelt unbuckled (which is against the law when driving) and because that left turn signal does not always turn on (that signal only turns on when there are more than one car in the left lane).

The thing is, I passed the white line when it was green/yellow and was finishing my turn when it went red. Passing this white line means that i must finish making my turn.

That being the case, as i was looking for what i dropped, i did not expect the left turn signal to turn on, and would have to wait for the opposite direction cars to pass before i can make my turn.

when the police car honked at me i quickly put on my seatbelt before i made my turn. Also, this was at night, around 12:50 AM, so what i was looking for was harder to see. Since there was no traffic, i do not see why the officer would write me this ticket..

bringing this explaination to court is it justified?

admin wrote:Traffic control signals and pedestrian control signals

Section 144:

Green arrow

(14) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing one or more green arrow indications only or in combination with a circular red or circular amber indication and facing the indication may proceed only to follow the direction shown by the arrow. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (14).

Well you were booked in the right circumstances...

Lets see what others have to say about this one.

it says "may proceed only to follow the direction shown by the arrow".. since it says may, it means i can choose to go or remain stationary right? it didnt say i "MUST proceed only to follow the direction shown by the arrow"

Also, if i have a recording of part of the conversation, will i be able to show it to the prosecutor? ill also have a video recording of the traffic light and show it to the prosecutor

IF THIS WERE ME.... (doesn't mean it would work)....

I would ask the Prosecutor if he would consider dropping the Turn ticket in return for a guilty plea on the license ticket. He may see no personal advantage to this offer as you really have no case on the license charge. If he refuses, perhaps spice up the offer by adding an extra $40 on the License penalty.

If he refuses, plan your defense:

- Officer (on the stand), how long after the turn-light turned green did I proceed with my turn?

<"About 10 seconds">

- You were under the impression that I was unaware that the light was green, correct?

<"Yes">

- Did you signal me, by honking your horn, to proceed?

<"Yes">

- Were you in full uniform and driving a marked cruiser at the time?

<"Yes">

- Thank you officer.

I would refuse to take the stand in my own defense, and wait for my turn for closing statement

Closing Statement:

Your worship, the officer indicated under oath that he signaled me to proceed. I did so, despite the transition of the light from green to yellow. As I understand Section 134 (1) of the HTA, I am required by law to follow the direction of a police officer despite a possible contravention of pertinent traffic laws.

134. (1) Where a police officer considers it reasonably necessary,

As for section 144, Subsections (12) and (14) utilize the word "may" when referring a drivers requirement to proceed on a green light. This makes sense as there may be circumstances in which it would be unsafe, or impossible, to proceed, such as mechanical difficulties with my vehicle, pedestrians in the vicinity of the intersection, etc. Since the Crown has offered no conclusive evidence that it WAS safe and mechanically possible to "immediately" proceed when the light turned green, AND the officer clearly signaled me to "eventually" proceed despite the light changing from green to yellow, I ask that this case against me be dismissed.

P.S. If it comes out in evidence that you were fumbling around for something in the car (ie. not paying attention), you're screwed!

Thats very good.

But if i had dropped my waterbottle and it rolled below the wheel, i obviously have to retrieve it before i proceed, otherwise it would be dangerous to drive with the chance of the bottle rolling under the brake pad. This would not be "fumbling with something" am i right? i retrieved the water bottle for my own safety and others of the immediate future.

Bookm wrote:IF THIS WERE ME.... (doesn't mean it would work)....

I would ask the Prosecutor if he would consider dropping the Turn ticket in return for a guilty plea on the license ticket. He may see no personal advantage to this offer as you really have no case on the license charge. If he refuses, perhaps spice up the offer by adding an extra $40 on the License penalty.

If he refuses, plan your defense:

- Officer (on the stand), how long after the turn-light turned green did I proceed with my turn?

<"About 10 seconds">

- You were under the impression that I was unaware that the light was green, correct?

<"Yes">

- Did you signal me, by honking your horn, to proceed?

<"Yes">

- Were you in full uniform and driving a marked cruiser at the time?

<"Yes">

- Thank you officer.

I would refuse to take the stand in my own defense, and wait for my turn for closing statement

Closing Statement:

Your worship, the officer indicated under oath that he signaled me to proceed. I did so, despite the transition of the light from green to yellow. As I understand Section 134 (1) of the HTA, I am required by law to follow the direction of a police officer despite a possible contravention of pertinent traffic laws.

134. (1) Where a police officer considers it reasonably necessary,

(a) to ensure orderly movement of traffic;

(b) to prevent injury or damage to persons or property; or

(c) to permit proper action in an emergency,

he or she may direct traffic according to his or her discretion, despite the provisions of this Part, and every person shall obey his or her directions. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 134 (1).

As for section 144, Subsections (12) and (14) utilize the word "may" when referring a drivers requirement to proceed on a green light. This makes sense as there may be circumstances in which it would be unsafe, or impossible, to proceed, such as mechanical difficulties with my vehicle, pedestrians in the vicinity of the intersection, etc. Since the Crown has offered no conclusive evidence that it WAS safe and mechanically possible to "immediately" proceed when the light turned green, AND the officer clearly signaled me to "eventually" proceed despite the light changing from green to yellow, I ask that this case against me be dismissed.

P.S. If it comes out in evidence that you were fumbling around for something in the car (ie. not paying attention), you're screwed!

Questionz wrote:

admin wrote:Traffic control signals and pedestrian control signals

Section 144:

Green arrow

(14) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing one or more green arrow indications only or in combination with a circular red or circular amber indication and facing the indication may proceed only to follow the direction shown by the arrow. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (14).

Well you were booked in the right circumstances...

Lets see what others have to say about this one.

it says "may proceed only to follow the direction shown by the arrow".. since it says may, it means i can choose to go or remain stationary right? it didnt say i "MUST proceed only to follow the direction shown by the arrow"

Also, if i have a recording of part of the conversation, will i be able to show it to the prosecutor? ill also have a video recording of the traffic light and show it to the prosecutor

IMO that won't matter. If you were in that lane, and you had a green arrow, you Have to proceed. The "may" clause is used always in these type of legal documents, since due to other factors, you may NOT proceed. Such as if a fire truck or emergency vehicle is going by.

As Bookm mentioned, try taking a plea bargain route instead of trying to fight the legal language of the OHTA.

Questionz wrote:Thats very good.

But if i had dropped my waterbottle ...

This would not be "fumbling with something" am i right?...

I agree with your strategy. I'm just concerned that the JP may disregard your "safety" issue since YOUR the one who created the threat in the first place (by dropping your water bottle on the floor).

There's no doubt that this is a Strict Liability charge, which means a reasonable defense is all that is necessary for dismissal. You just have to show that you exercised Due Diligence. The word "may" indicates that you have a choice. If you read the section on RED lights, it says you "shall" stop (no choice = Absolute Liabilty).

If it were me, I'd still defend myself on the belief that the wrong charge was laid. Perhaps Impede Traffic would have been more appropriate.

true, i believe so as well, but there were no other vehicles on the road, so i dont think the officer would give me the impeding ticket. since it was long weekend, i think he was just trying to find any and all possible ways to give people tickets.

Bookm wrote:If it were me, I'd still defend myself on the belief that the wrong charge was laid. Perhaps Impede Traffic would have been more appropriate.

I would think that IF you are suggesting what charge was more appropriate, and attempting to bamboozle a person with your attempt on legal BS, you would at least look up things and know that there is no such charge as "Impede Traffic" in the HTA.

Ok, i talked with the prosecutor, and he gave me the options:

(1) plead guilty to the proof of ownership charge, and the left turn signal will be dropped

(2) go to court for both charges

I picked the first option, only later to find that i should have chosen the second option. I initially picked the first option because i did not want to deal with having to wait 6 months and still remember the incident, and now i regret that because with the second option chosen, there was a chance that both charges would be dropped.

THe thing is, with different insurance companies the charge of not providing proof of ownership when requested can increase the insurance. Since i agreed to plead guilty, i am wondering if anyone who is with the Allstate insurance company knows if this guilty charge will increase the insurance premium?

Also, i have previously been told that if i did not have the proof of ownership upon request, i have about 10 days to show the prosecutor that the proof and he/she would drop the charge... i am wondering if anyone knows if that would be used in this case: since i have the two charges, would showing the proof around 10 days be allowed, or is it only possible to show the proof 10 days after conviction if that was the only charge given when stopped by the officer?

hwybear wrote:I would think that IF you are suggesting what charge was more appropriate, and attempting to bamboozle a person with your attempt on legal BS, you would at least look up things and know that there is no such charge as "Impede Traffic" in the HTA.

132. (1) No motor vehicle shall be driven on a highway at such a slow rate of speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic thereon except when the slow rate of speed is necessary for safe operation having regard to all the circumstances. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 132 (1).

But thanks for your expert advice

Bookm wrote:

hwybear wrote:I would think that IF you are suggesting what charge was more appropriate, and attempting to bamboozle a person with your attempt on legal BS, you would at least look up things and know that there is no such charge as "Impede Traffic" in the HTA.

132. (1) No motor vehicle shall be driven on a highway at such a slow rate of speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic thereon except when the slow rate of speed is necessary for safe operation having regard to all the circumstances. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 132 (1).

But thanks for your expert advice

Thank you Mr. Smarty Clown

However, the charge is still not "Impede Traffic" as previously mentioned... HTA 132 (1) charge is "Unncessary Slow Driving"

(insert Simpson's Nelson's voice... HAHA)

....however on the lighter side I was really thinking you meant

HTA 170(12) where the charge would be "Interfere with Traffic"

hwybear wrote:... Thank you Mr. Smarty Clown

My friends on the "Smarty Clown" thread are offended and demand an apology.

hwybear wrote:However, the charge is still not "Impede Traffic" as previously mentioned... HTA 132 (1) charge is "Unncessary Slow Driving"

(insert Simpson's Nelson's voice... HAHA)

....however on the lighter side I was really thinking you meant

HTA 170(12) where the charge would be "Interfere with Traffic"

Note to others: See, make Bear mad enough and he'll cough up useful information for your defense