+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Road design, safety and Vision Zero (/showthread.php?tid=1409)
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - ijmorlan - 01-19-2021
(01-19-2021, 05:00 AM)plam Wrote:(01-19-2021, 12:03 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Why ask if they’re always going to write the ticket?
Or is the point that they observe somebody running a definitely-red and might give a warning if the person fesses up, but not if the person claims it was amber?
It's a confession, right. I think the cop will also note the confession on the back of the ticket in case it comes up in court. But they also have discretion to give a warning.
Now I’m confused. Saying it was an amber is a denial, not a confession, unless one also admits that one “could have” stopped.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - danbrotherston - 01-19-2021
(01-18-2021, 10:07 PM)plam Wrote:(01-18-2021, 07:56 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I would also bet some money that no amber ticket has been issued to a driver not involved in a collision in the history of our province. Now, that's a long time, so I wouldn't bet a lot of money, but I think it's not an unlikely reality.
Heard from a cop that they sometimes ask "was that a red or amber" and proceed to give a ticket for an amber.
I mean, that's another type of discretion....like when the police measure your speed at x and then give you a ticket for < x.
I guess I should qualify, no one has ever gotten a ticket where the officer believes the person ran the amber, only when they are giving them a break.
I don't much like it in general, because people who fight tickets (i.e., have resources and look right) are liable to get it decreased even further.
Just another source of bias that automated enforcement doesn't have.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - tomh009 - 01-19-2021
(01-19-2021, 09:51 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I guess I should qualify, no one has ever gotten a ticket where the officer believes the person ran the amber, only when they are giving them a break.
I agree that normally no one will get a ticket for entering the intersection on an amber light. But, I do think there are a few exceptions:
First, if that person entering the intersection on an amber light causes an accident.
Second, if that person entering the intersection does it clearly unsafely, stomping on the accelerator and entering the intersection at very high speed. This one would likely require a police officer to witness the situation, and will be pretty rare.
Tom
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - danbrotherston - 01-19-2021
(01-19-2021, 10:50 AM)tomh009 Wrote:(01-19-2021, 09:51 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I guess I should qualify, no one has ever gotten a ticket where the officer believes the person ran the amber, only when they are giving them a break.
I agree that normally no one will get a ticket for entering the intersection on an amber light. But, I do think there are a few exceptions:
First, if that person entering the intersection on an amber light causes an accident.
Second, if that person entering the intersection does it clearly unsafely, stomping on the accelerator and entering the intersection at very high speed. This one would likely require a police officer to witness the situation, and will be pretty rare.
Tom
My first statement did include a qualification that there was no resulting collision:
"I would also bet some money that no amber ticket has been issued to a driver not involved in a collision in the history of our province."
If there is a collision, police are much more willing to lay charges. This bugs me on basis, running a red is illegal because it MAY cause a collision, not ONLY when it causes a collision.
Which brings me to the second point. An officer witnessing aggressive/dangerous driving as you describe is unlikely to issue a ticket unless they are explicitly on a traffic enforcement detail. Drivers break the law constantly, and police officers don't generally pull them over. If the driving was so egregious as to get a driver to pull them over, I doubt "failure to stop at amber light" would be the ticket issued. Officers will often even ignore distracted driving, anyway. I have on more than one occasion pointed out a driver distracted on their phone to a police officer nearby, and they have never pulled them over.
I very nearly have a photo of a police officer distracted on their phone (which I know is not illegal) right next to a driver distracted on their phone. Unfortunately I was a little slow on the draw, so all I have is a police officer glaring at me.
But this is all speculation derived from my intense cynacism around both policing and road safety, so take that as you will.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - Coke6pk - 01-19-2021
(01-19-2021, 09:51 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:(01-18-2021, 10:07 PM)plam Wrote: Heard from a cop that they sometimes ask "was that a red or amber" and proceed to give a ticket for an amber.
I mean, that's another type of discretion....like when the police measure your speed at x and then give you a ticket for < x.
I guess I should qualify, no one has ever gotten a ticket where the officer believes the person ran the amber, only when they are giving them a break.
I don't much like it in general, because people who fight tickets (i.e., have resources and look right) are liable to get it decreased even further.
Just another source of bias that automated enforcement doesn't have.
Be aware that on a Pt I Provincial Offence Notice, there is a box to the right hand side marked "CODE". If a ticket is reduced roadside (lower speed, lesser charge), it will be marked with an "R" in that box.
If you proceed to fight that ticket, the prosecutor already knows you got a reduction, and is less or un-likely to reduce further. Additionally, if you fight the ticket (ie. 65 km/h in a 50 km/h zone), the officer is required to provide the evidence as they noted. "ie, I recorded on radar the vehicle travelling at 95 km/h in a 50 km/h zone". The JP will register a conviction BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED AT TRIAL, therefore, a conviction will be for 45 km/h over the speed limit, and not the 15 km/h over that was on the ticket. Fighting a reduced ticket is VERY RISKY unless you have some information or evidence that works in your favour.
Coke
Personal note: Was in my car returning from work last week around midnight on Homer Watson Blvd. Stopped at a light, when the light went green, I proceeded, and a car (that was previously stopped behind me), got into the right lane and gunned it past me. A few seconds later an SUV also passed me on the right (I have a heavy foot, I was not impeding traffic, but was turning left at the next lights, hence why I wasn't in right lane... plus there were hardly any cars on the road), but it immediately lit up like a Christmas Tree and pulled over that first vehicle. Proving, SOMETIMES there is a cop around when you want one! (Even though it is a rarity!)
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - danbrotherston - 01-19-2021
(01-19-2021, 11:15 AM)Coke6pk Wrote:(01-19-2021, 09:51 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I mean, that's another type of discretion....like when the police measure your speed at x and then give you a ticket for < x.
I guess I should qualify, no one has ever gotten a ticket where the officer believes the person ran the amber, only when they are giving them a break.
I don't much like it in general, because people who fight tickets (i.e., have resources and look right) are liable to get it decreased even further.
Just another source of bias that automated enforcement doesn't have.
Be aware that on a Pt I Provincial Offence Notice, there is a box to the right hand side marked "CODE". If a ticket is reduced roadside (lower speed, lesser charge), it will be marked with an "R" in that box.
If you proceed to fight that ticket, the prosecutor already knows you got a reduction, and is less or un-likely to reduce further. Additionally, if you fight the ticket (ie. 65 km/h in a 50 km/h zone), the officer is required to provide the evidence as they noted. "ie, I recorded on radar the vehicle travelling at 95 km/h in a 50 km/h zone". The JP will register a conviction BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED AT TRIAL, therefore, a conviction will be for 45 km/h over the speed limit, and not the 15 km/h over that was on the ticket. Fighting a reduced ticket is VERY RISKY unless you have some information evidence that works in your favour.
Coke
Interesting, I did not know that. Thanks for letting me know.
I would be curious to know what kind of success rate people have fighting tickets, including using services like "x-coppers" or whatever. Cross referencing with income, race etc. I feel like someone must have studied this data.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - Coke6pk - 01-19-2021
(01-19-2021, 11:24 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I would be curious to know what kind of success rate people have fighting tickets, including using services like "x-coppers" or whatever. Cross referencing with income, race etc. I feel like someone must have studied this data.
I can give you non-scientific evidence, based on my personal experience being in traffic court.
The paralegal services are great if you can't take a day off work, but they don't really have any "insider" knowledge. They will attempt to get a reduction in fine amounts, just like any citizen can do by pleading guilty with an explanation. They check to ensure the officer is in attendance (and will request the charge be withdrawn if they are not) - something anyone can do if you recognize the officer. They are also aware of what on a ticket is fatal (ie. there are very few things on a ticket that will get it thrown out, but if one of those exist, they will exploit it) as well they know very well everything that the officer has to prove in their testimony, and if something is missed, they will request the charge be withdrawn as required evidence is missing. (ie. Officer stated in the City of Cambridge, but did not state in the Province of Ontario, therefore I have concerns that this court has no legal authority to deal with this charge, and that it be withdrawn).
Normally plead guilty in exchange for a reduction (that they can claim to the customer is "a win"), and sometimes they sit thru the trial with a checklist, have no evidence to present and accept the verdict at the end.
Coke
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - ijmorlan - 01-19-2021
(01-19-2021, 11:10 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: If there is a collision, police are much more willing to lay charges. This bugs me on basis, running a red is illegal because it MAY cause a collision, not ONLY when it causes a collision.
This bugs me as a parent also. Kids are forever telling me that the plate didn’t break, the milk didn’t spill, etc.
I guess some people never grow up.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - Rainrider22 - 01-19-2021
Not admissible in court unless the person has been cautioned.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - plam - 01-19-2021
(01-19-2021, 08:41 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:(01-19-2021, 05:00 AM)plam Wrote: It's a confession, right. I think the cop will also note the confession on the back of the ticket in case it comes up in court. But they also have discretion to give a warning.
Now I’m confused. Saying it was an amber is a denial, not a confession, unless one also admits that one “could have” stopped.
I guess that would be up to the ticket recipient to say that they could not have stopped in court. It's like how I was talking yesterday about how the GRCA was giving tickets for rock climbing at Rockwood. Do they have jurisdiction? Well, they believe they do. If you don't think they do you can see them in court.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - jamincan - 01-21-2021
(01-19-2021, 07:28 PM)plam Wrote:Where were you talking about GRCA and rock climbing?(01-19-2021, 08:41 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Now I’m confused. Saying it was an amber is a denial, not a confession, unless one also admits that one “could have” stopped.
I guess that would be up to the ticket recipient to say that they could not have stopped in court. It's like how I was talking yesterday about how the GRCA was giving tickets for rock climbing at Rockwood. Do they have jurisdiction? Well, they believe they do. If you don't think they do you can see them in court.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - plam - 01-21-2021
(01-21-2021, 09:22 AM)jamincan Wrote:(01-19-2021, 07:28 PM)plam Wrote: I guess that would be up to the ticket recipient to say that they could not have stopped in court. It's like how I was talking yesterday about how the GRCA was giving tickets for rock climbing at Rockwood. Do they have jurisdiction? Well, they believe they do. If you don't think they do you can see them in court.Where were you talking about GRCA and rock climbing?
There was an Ontario Alliance of Climbers town hall earlier this week and we got questions about Rockwood. Specifically: it's not clear that GRCA owns the top of the cliff, so one could argue that one is not climbing on GRCA land. But, GRCA did in fact give out tickets in 2018. It's up to the recipient to contest it if they feel they can win.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - danbrotherston - 02-18-2021
Sadly a woman was killed today by a recycling truck.
Worse, the media report shows it was a self driving vehicle
It takes real skill to write an article about a motor vehicle crash without even using the word "driver".
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - Acitta - 03-04-2021
Four Cambridge neighbourhoods going to be part of a speed limit pilot
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - danbrotherston - 03-21-2021
Matt Pinder has a great article about turn radii.
There's little justification for any urban street to have a turn radii larger than 9 meters, which is exactly what the Kitchener complete streets guide provides as a maximum.
Of course, our regional engineers end up with turn radii anywhere from 15 meters to 50 even on residential streets where transports like this should never be.
https://beyondtheautomobile.com/2021/03/20/how-big-does-the-corner-really-need-to-be/