OHTA.ca

Just had first attendance. A bit of a waste of time. Prosecutor was not interested in any discussion. It was either plead guilty(fine reduced) or not guilty and see you at trial. I asked for it to be withdrawn. Nope. Also asked to amend it to a by-law. Said it was not possible to change hta offences to by-laws.(Im not sure if thats true or not)

What a waste of time(I had a feeling those were the two likely outcomes though). I wont bother with "Scene" details. I didnt feel it was safe to stop. It was a yellow light when I entered the intersection and I proceeded safely/in a cautious manner as that was the safest thing to do.

Cop went off on me about accidents and what if scenarios that were not relevant to the situation(and said he wouldve rather seen me stopped sideways in the middle of the intersection ). We chatted about it for a while. Surprised he indulged in that. Normally I dont talk much but we talked about the state of driving and drivers in the city(and how terrible it is). He then told me to take it to court and fight it, whatever that means.

So I have to wait for a trial notice but was wondering if there is anything iron clad I could come up with. Its obviously going to be his word vs mine and who do you think they side with?

Cost, points etc. Doesnt matter to me. I dont want a conviction , period.

I think I am the better judge of how my car drives and what I shouldve done in that situation. But apparently its on me to convince the JP of this. How in a situation like this is a cop a better judge than me? Hes never driven my car. He hadnt even driven that road at that time. He was going in a different direction/on the perpendicular roadway.

what a silly grey area. Thoughts, tips?

thanks

They aren't going to withdraw the charge if the evidence is there and certainly wouldn't drop it down to a by-law for a variety of jurisdictional reasons. Bottom line: could you have safely stopped? That's all that matters. When faced with an amber, the driver MUST stop unless he cannot do so safely. The onus shifts to the defendant to establish why he couldn't stop! The amber light is not a warning signal or discretionary; for all intensive purposes it is a stop. Unfortunately, many driving instructors and the driver's handbook create much confusion in this regard by telling you its ok to proceed with caution. However, that's not the law.

So, if the officer was opposite to you he/she likely would have had a good view of whether their was traffic behind you or anything else that would be in jeopardy had you stopped. Plus, they would have been able to see how long you were already facing the amber light before you entered the intersection. The amber light is on for 4 seconds: if you entered the intersection at the 3 second mark, then you clearly had enough warning/time to stop safely because you would have seen the amber well before the interesection. The officer will also be able to testify whether you accelerated to beat the light.

Bottom line: the charge is not a grey area. The evidence will undoubtedly fall upon the credibility of you vs. the officer, but make no mistake about it, the officer likely has a good vantage point and their credibility may be hard to challenge----after all, you not only have a vested interested in the outcome of the case, but should have taken greater precaution if you claim your car is any different than what a ordinary car is. If you know your car better than the officer then you should have taken greater measures to accommodate any deviations from the norm!

Be careful with what argument you raise. It could actually bite you back. Be prepared for trial.