the winnipeg sandbox
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
the winnipeg sandbox

Latest topics

» Gord Steeves should run for Mayor
by FlyingRat Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:58 pm

» To discontinue?
by EdWin Sat Jul 12, 2014 9:26 pm

» Sandbox breakfast get-together, Saturday, January 25, 2014.
by rosencrentz Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:27 pm

» 2013-14 Bisons/CIS Thread
by Hollywood Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:56 pm

» Katz must resign
by cobragt Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:09 pm

» Best Breakfast/Brunch
by cobragt Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:07 pm

» Manitoba Action Party
by RogerStrong Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:24 pm

» Police Respond to a silent alarm With Guns Drawn
by EdWin Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:10 pm

» Details about Cineplex SuperTicket -- interesting promotion
by MattKel Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:08 pm

» Freep locks out non-subscriber commentary
by Deank Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:58 pm

» 7-year sentence for Berlusconi
by FlyingRat Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:32 pm

» New Stadium
by grumpy old man Mon May 27, 2013 4:34 pm

» Winnipeg News Android App
by grumpy old man Mon May 27, 2013 4:33 pm

» First Post
by grumpy old man Fri May 24, 2013 2:43 pm

» The New Sals at Pembina and Stafford
by grumpy old man Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:35 pm

» Emma Watson wants to do nude scenes for 50 shades of grey movie
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:39 am

» Museum finally admits it needs to raise more money priovately.
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:32 am

» And You Thought Your Taxes Are High Now!!!
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:21 am

» free chocolate sample
by cobragt Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:12 pm

» Do you want a gift certificate for A winnipeg restraunt?
by cobragt Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:12 pm


You are not connected. Please login or register

Another radar decision

+7
umcrouc0
Bartron
Traffic Ticket Guru
AGEsAces
grumpy old man
FlyingRat
Deank
11 posters

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

1Another radar decision Empty Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:31 pm

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

Yesterday a Judge in Traffic Court ruled that the enlarged photos of the ones taken by cameras were inadmissable as evidence (they're used to get the plate numbers) and dismissed a speeding ticket.

The Red Light Cameras take two photos of the vehicle...neither of which is very clear and neither of which show the plate clear enough to make out a number. The police enlarge one photo to be able to determine a number.

The law states clearly what type of photo is admissable. It has to have a black box at the top with details of the infraction. The enlargement doesn't have this and is inadmissable.

The Judge said that the camera photos could not have been used to determine the number, and surmized that the enlargement must have been used, which is inadmissable, ergo, there can be no determination of the plate number.

The Crown said it will be appealing the decision.

Remember folks...you heard it here first. Wink

2Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:50 pm

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

holy fark!

3Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:25 pm

FlyingRat

FlyingRat
moderator
moderator

Sweet scoop JTF! Had I known you were fighting your ticket yesterday, I could have joined ya for lunch! ;-)

4Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:26 pm

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

Seems to me that the crown will have to be able to show a legal connection between the camera photo and the enlargement and be able to say it is within the present legislation. I don't think they can personally.

The legislation has to be ammended imo. But, we'll see.

5Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:27 pm

FlyingRat

FlyingRat
moderator
moderator

I wonder what would happen if I put a black sticker near my licence plate on which was written "no infraction"..... hmmmmmm

6Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:31 pm

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

FlyingRat wrote:Sweet scoop JTF! Had I known you were fighting your ticket yesterday, I could have joined ya for lunch! ;-)
I was there at 2:00.

As a result of the decision, I worked the crown at the break and got a deal ...I agreed to pay $100.

7Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:32 pm

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

FlyingRat wrote:I wonder what would happen if I put a black sticker near my licence plate on which was written "no infraction"..... hmmmmmm

...or....Enlarge This!
Wink

8Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:33 pm

FlyingRat

FlyingRat
moderator
moderator

Before I can react to the $100 deal, what was the original fine?

9Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:42 pm

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

$278. 80 in a 60 on Pembina at Grant. (tsk tsk tsk on the Muse)

10Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:45 pm

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

good thing she was going fast enough to get away from the camera so the picture was not readable Smile

11Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:49 pm

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

There isn't one photo taken by those cameras that is clear enough to make out a province or state, nevermind a number.
This appears to be a big glitch in the system imo.

12Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:50 pm

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

Good catch jtf. I'll keep that in reserve for the next time.

13Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:52 pm

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

merci.

14Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:16 pm

FlyingRat

FlyingRat
moderator
moderator

Pembina should be a 70 zone IMO.

15Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:17 pm

AGEsAces

AGEsAces
moderator
moderator

JTF wrote:
FlyingRat wrote:Sweet scoop JTF! Had I known you were fighting your ticket yesterday, I could have joined ya for lunch! ;-)
I was there at 2:00.

As a result of the decision, I worked the crown at the break and got a deal ...I agreed to pay $100.

Geesh...I really made out then.

Got a camera light ticket on Burrows doing 64 in a 50...my plea that there are no limit signs on Burrows to say "50" and that both streets entering it (McPhillips & Keewatin) are both 60, and that Inkster (only a block away) is also 60 (most of the way)...that who's to know Burrows isn't the same.

Got a $76 ticket, instead of the $214 I was supposed to get.

http://www.photage.ca

16Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:17 pm

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

Absolutely. Grant also should be higher than 50 west of Stafford. We had a similar discussion on speed limits on another thread. This came up.

17Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:20 pm

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

A new member just signed on that is certain to add to this thread.

Welcome TrafficTicketGuru!

18Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:21 pm

FlyingRat

FlyingRat
moderator
moderator

grumpy old man wrote:Absolutely. Grant also should be higher than 50 west of Stafford. We had a similar discussion on speed limits on another thread. This came up.

I agree with you West of Stafford and East of Cambridge. Not for the part between Kenaston and Cambridge. Too many intersections.

19Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:23 pm

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

i like trafficticketguru's website

20Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:26 pm

FlyingRat

FlyingRat
moderator
moderator

like it enough to link to it?

21Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:30 pm

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

22Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:44 pm

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

FlyingRat wrote:
grumpy old man wrote:Absolutely. Grant also should be higher than 50 west of Stafford. We had a similar discussion on speed limits on another thread. This came up.

I agree with you West of Stafford and East of Cambridge. Not for the part between Kenaston and Cambridge. Too many intersections.
Nah. That is a four lane road with a wide median. Hell, Pembina has not only as many intersections but a mazillion curb cuts for business driveways...

23Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:48 pm

FlyingRat

FlyingRat
moderator
moderator

Pembina also has more than 4 lanes...

24Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:50 pm

Traffic Ticket Guru

Traffic Ticket Guru

I just added a reply......or at least I thought I had.......are the comments moderated and accepted or instant? Or because I'm new and added a link was it punted?

25Another radar decision Empty Re: Another radar decision Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:52 pm

AGEsAces

AGEsAces
moderator
moderator

we self-moderate...so it should be automatic.

your link should not have gotten rejected....try posting it again if you can...let us know if you have problems.

http://www.photage.ca

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum