Again radar tickets thrown out...

David MacKay says he was travelling north on Henderson Highway about 6 p.m. on June 8 — a Tuesday — just north of Bonner Avenue when he noticed the flash from a mobile photo radar vehicle. He checked his speedometer and says he was only going about 63 km/h in a 60-km/h zone.

He noticed virtually every car behind him also triggered a flash, but observed they weren’t speeding either.

MacKay, president and CEO of Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers, wasn’t about to let this one go. He got a ticket for $215 but decided to fight it in court by pleading not guilty.

MacKay says he wasn’t speeding. But that’s not what ultimately got him off the hook.

In court, MacKay — who worked for Mayor Sam Katz during the 2006 municipal election as a speech writer — cross-examined the commissionaire who issued the ticket.

He asked him if he knew where the school in question was located. After all, if it’s a school zone, there should be a visible school located nearby.

The commissionaire said he had no idea.

“I’m not aware of a school anywhere in the area and I’ve lived there for 10 years,” said MacKay. “There just happens to be a nice convenient place for him to park.”

In fact, there is a school nearby. But you can’t even see it from Henderson Highway. It’s about 200 meters east of the location, past several buildings and up a narrow, winding road. I checked it out.

The location where MacKay was nabbed is marked with school zone signs. But no reasonable person could possibly consider this area a school zone. The school, John G. Stewart, is far removed from the Henderson Highway location.

Nailing motorists there at 6 p.m. on a weekday well after school hours obviously has nothing to do with promoting safety for children and is contrary to the province’s photo enforcement legislation.

So the ticket was quashed. And a precedent has been set.

grumpy old man wrote:If the speed limit along a roadway in a school zone is 80kmh drivers are expected to slow to 30kmh? I'll bet that rarely happens...

Deank wrote:unmarked residential is 50

grumpy old man wrote:One thing that concerns me is Larry Stefaniak's position on cell phone fines and smoking in cars with children present fines.

He calls the former a cash grab and wails about needing laws for "people drinking hot beverages, steering with their knees while they try to eat messy fast food, or women putting on make up". There are laws on the books to deal with those scofflaws.

But to fight the specific cell phone law because there are no specific laws on the books for the other moronic things us drivers do? Seems pretty lame to me.

Jondo wrote:AgeAces is nice to see there are still some thinkers left out there. Thanks for putting it out there.

grumpy old man wrote:One thing that concerns me is Larry Stefaniak's position on cell phone fines and smoking in cars with children present fines.

He calls the former a cash grab and wails about needing laws for "people drinking hot beverages, steering with their knees while they try to eat messy fast food, or women putting on make up". There are laws on the books to deal with those scofflaws.

But to fight the specific cell phone law because there are no specific laws on the books for the other moronic things us drivers do? Seems pretty lame to me.

Jondo wrote:You should properly reframe that as - people who understand the simple facts and those who don't.

AGEsAces wrote:

grumpy old man wrote:One thing that concerns me is Larry Stefaniak's position on cell phone fines and smoking in cars with children present fines.

He calls the former a cash grab and wails about needing laws for "people drinking hot beverages, steering with their knees while they try to eat messy fast food, or women putting on make up". There are laws on the books to deal with those scofflaws.

But to fight the specific cell phone law because there are no specific laws on the books for the other moronic things us drivers do? Seems pretty lame to me.

You mean this quote you posted?