Teachers: photo radar busted

Deank wrote:they know tha cash cow is coming to an end in 2012 when the contract is up, they are trying to get as much out of it as possible

I wouldn't be too confident that the contract will magically go away...it's been negotiated as we speak by the sounds of things:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/editorials/analysis-not-even-on-radar-136054393.html

But that is NOT at the council level. The WPS and the bureaucrats at the city are duty bound to keep supporting the continuation of Photo Radar until the politicians tell them to stop. And until a councillor even brings it up, it wont be discussed at council. The WPS especially has a vested interest in this program stopping ( increased actual police ) but until their is political direction they cant just change their minds about supporting it.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/Police-asked-to-explain-why-public-wasnt--told-of-mobile-radar-on-Grant-137422938.html

"The Canadian Taxpayers Federation and WiseUp Winnipeg said they have
obtained emails from the Winnipeg Police Service saying a press release
should have been issued last October about the photo radar on Grant Ave.
west of Nathaniel Street. The two groups say they have copies of
tickets from before the day the email was sent by a Central Traffic Unit
officer."

Am I missing something?



So, the WPS has an internal email debate about issuing warnings and violations, but the violations are issued, without public warning (like I wish they would warn everyone before they issue the ticket, right?).



Now, the public never knew that there was this debate about public warnings, so how does that somehow mean that the violations should be negated?



Regardless of who says what, where is the requirement to issue a public warning before starting enforcement?



And another thing, what does all this have to do with the CTF?

ctf is because they are ripping tax payers off

and....I am tinking there is supposed to be a warning before enforcement of new areas,, part o the legislation

Deank wrote:and....I am tinking there is supposed to be a warning before enforcement of new areas,, part o the legislation

Not sure about that, I never get an email when they set up on Burrows in front of Northwood CC.

You don't see the program as gov't fundraising (taxation)? By the way - in Edmonton, an $80 ticket is worth $288 here. I suppose, if you ask the city, that makes Winnipeg 350% safer.

Regarding the e-mail stream - there is much to garner from it. The S/Sgt running the program states 5 times that a public release must go out when they do something new - as in off-the-road shooting - which he is referring to, not that its a new school zone location. Understand that it was deemed unenforceable for 9 yrs. Surely you can read his concern. The Const goes on to say that he had planned to begin issuing tickets from this location, after a week of "conducting tests" but will hold back violation- in fact he had been processing violations since the day they set up - and set up in a way that is prohibited by any other mobile photo radar program (having learge metallic objects between the camera and target)- as we will deliver in court soon. It's a radar 101 - and that being the reason for the concern. Read the stream at Sun. The e-mail goes on to talk about the need for a visible deterrent. The program is anything but - being as stealthy as possible including the micro-print on the rear-side windows that looks like a sliver of snow on the bottom of the window - to meet their requirement to have all mobile vehicles clearly marked as such. In other cities they are loudly marked and required to place placards 100 yards prior announcing photo vehicle.

And their press release in response to the points was pathetic and off-point - reguritating the same Just Slow Down nonsense. It closes with "Our message to drivers continues to be "Just Slow Down". The double-speak is nauseating. The program targets registered owners - not drivers. But lets not question that statement right?

The provincial regulations for use of photo radar state the city/police MUST issue a press release prior to deploying radar at new locations. They are NOT allowed to use photo radar without doing so. In this case the police issued internal memos instructing photo radar deployment at Grant and Nathaniel to be delayed until such time as this press release was issued. Those instructions were ignored.

For those following this closely you'll recall the police earlier stated they've been monitoring that area since day one. These internal memos prove the police lied.

They have signs there on Grant stating that isn't a photo radar area.

Does this mean they have to do more when they set up there?

Those signs have been there for years.

I have been caught 4 times in photo radar since the program has started here. Every time I was speeding and over the limit. Had I not been speeding I would not have received the ticket, not sure what the problem is

Well, for one, having a ridiculously low speed limit in an area can be considered a trap.

The problem is not speeding per se. It's the city/province not following regulations; it's the city/province not providing proper signage; it's the city/province singing the safety issue but creating a situation where they maximize revenue.

The other issue, unrelated but important, is inconsistent speed limits around the city and inconsistent amber light times.

What I am advocating, and WiseUpWinnipeg as well, is follow the regulations to the letter, install correct signage and change amber light timing, and most of the complaints go away. Certainly mine do.

"and most of the complaints go away. Certainly mine do."

and far more importantly.. SAFETY LEAPS WAY UP

...but because revenues would go down...these bozos are reluctant to do the right thing.

One would think the police would be at the head of the line to advocate for longer yellow lights....but no. Jerkoffs!!

Most of the hundred calls I've recieved over the past week have been from WPS members - who despise this program and the cost to their reputation it has brought. Look for a few to speak publicly soon. Big day in court Wednesday - with all media attending.

It would be better if the police chief spoke out about the reputation of the cops....but he's part of the problem.

Have a good one today TODD!

dont let the debbie downers get you down and please continue your quest to make our city a safer place.

I strongly believe many (most?) of those comments are ACS employees and possibly CoW employees.

Why in the world would some people so vehemently dislike what the WuW people are doing? Why wouldn't people want someone to hold our elected officials and bureaucrat' feet to the fire? Would those same people argue against someone fighting tax increases?

Boggles the mind...

I bet they're ACS employees also.... scared that their jobs will soon be history and the scam exposed.

i heard on the CBC radio this morning that one former police officer was testifying that the tickets issued on Grant and Nathaniel were out of sync because there was too much metal between the machine and the cars!

That sounds to me, as an unbiased by-stander, to be full of crap! lol

That person is hired to fight tickets! Sounds to me like a lawyers' liar answer!

Well, this result isn't very good on the PR front:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/01/18/wise-up-court-challenge-fails

"However, the group's expert witness — a retired photo radar operator — was not permitted to testify in open court without proper notice"

Wow, talk about having your knees cut out from under you.

They got powned.

The judge is however free to allow a witness who was brought without notice OR delay the trial so proper notice can be provided if it is in the best interest of justice.

careful, you might be found in contempt with that kind of logic.

;-)

Pure BS. Did the mobile photo car operator put his credentials on the record? Something is not right here. The radar car operators are experts? Were his credentials placed before the court? Why then could the defendant not introduce a witness to contradict the crown's witness?

Something is missing from this story.

Also, was there not a second case today put over until such time as a witness could be qualified as a witness?

BTW that sun story sure leaves a lot to be desired from a journalism perspective. Will any othet Winnipeg media outlet do a better job?

"Why then could the defendant not introduce a witness to contradict the crown's witness?"

EXACTLY

if one side offers EXPERT witness testimony the other side is virtually automatically allowed to provide an expert to refute that.

The laws of court procedure are meant to ENSURE justice, not dissuade it.

This sounds like a judgement that could be appealed very easily. Tell the guy to call me!

I think this was heard before a Hearing Officer (justice of the peace) and not a Judge.....so an appeal will be a lot different.

.....so will the other trial that is next....it will have a lawyer do the work.