Well I recently got a ticket for going thru a yellow light, and I was wondering if anyone has ever had this happen to them and what they did. I didn't speed up for the light and I went thru with time to spar as well it's not like it turned red as i was crossing the white line. So now I have a ticket for $180 and what ever points go with the charge. Any help would be appreciated.

P.S - There were no cars trying to turn left on the opposite end and there was zero oncoming traffic.

 

Sounds like B.S. Fight it and the officer probably won't waste his time showing up.

 

Ya but don't they get paid to go to court now?

 

i never heard of getting a ticket to run yellow (that's just bs). What is exactly the charge appear on your ticket??
i tought amber is "to proceed with caution" or was it "floored your gas pedal"?

 

I got stopped for the same thing..Wasn't Charged though..officer said it was a "red Light Blitz"..I said to him that I was too far into the intersection to stop safely,and I did proceed "with caution"..it Was a Rookie...He said they are supposed to treat Ambers like Red Lights..Which to me is a whole lot Of B.S TOO!..I'm going to get a Copy of the H.T.A...and keep it in my car..That way..If I'm stopped,I may be able to Object and PROVE it right Then and there..It's not the Driving,It's the CAR your driving..the Friggin Things are Cop Magnets!..the Ticket..Fight it.!..you have Zero to Lose!

 

On the actual tickets is says failure to stop at amber light. I always thought amber was caution, and since there was zero oncoming traffic and no one else tryin to turn left I should be good to go. Ya when the officer pulled me over he said " U know yellow means stop". I dunno. Should I hire someone come court time?

 

Are you going to pay someone $300+ to fight a $180 ticket? That only makes sense if you're going to lose your licence, or if you already have enough moving violation tickets that your insurance is going to go up.

As far as the charge - yellow means stop, if possible to do so safely - that's the ambiguous part. The officer who wrote you the ticket obviously thought you could have stopped safely. That's a judgment call, which again obviously is going to put your word against the cop's, and while he's not in your car, experiencing the exact timing and spatial relationships, he or she is someone whose judgment will be given a good deal of weight by the court, whereas you will have to establish yourself as trustworthy and competent.

Some questions to ask, both yourself if you want to fight the ticket, and the cop in court, will be: was I traveling the speed limit? (not being able to stop because you were speeding just aggravates your position). How far from the crosswalk or stopline was I when the light changed? Check provincial driver training materials for what they suggest stopping distances should be from given speeds - they're very general, but tend to be fairly conservative (ie, they don't assume world-class athlete reaction times or the stopping power of a Porsche on r-compounds).

You should go back to the intersection in question and measure off distances ASAP (so you can say it was done while the memory is fresh), make dated notes, with pictures if possible, particularly if you can show where your car was relative to the intersection when the light change - give a sense of scale. Where was the cop relative to you and the light - ie: was he in a position to see you and the light at the same time, and thereby know exactly where you were relative to the intersection when it changed, or might he have had to look from one to the other, introducing some uncertainty as to exact timing. Of course, if you were still far enough away to stop safely after the officer shifted his focus, that's not going to help - and the fact that you have phrased your statements to the effect that there was no other traffic, etc, suggests to me at least that you thought it was okay to proceed mostly because there wasn't anyone else it would interfere with, not because you couldn't have stopped - if I'm hearing that, the judge and the crown attorney will too. You might also question, if the cop was in a position to see you and the light, was he then able to accurately judge distance, or would distance have been foreshortened from his perspective, - for example, if he was behind you, he would clearly see the light change, but it might be hard to judge how far you were from the intersection because of foreshortened perspective. Or was he in a position to both see the light and out to the side so he could more accurately judge distance to the intersection.

From the Alberta HTA - you'll want to check your's, but its likely all but identical:

Yellow traffic lights
108(1) When a yellow light is shown at an intersection by a traffic
control signal at the same time as or following the showing of a
green light, the driver of a vehicle approaching the intersection and
facing the yellow light shall stop before entering
(a) the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection,
or
(b) if there is no such marked crosswalk, then before entering
the intersection,
unless such a stop cannot be made in safety.
(2) When a yellow light is shown at a place other than an
intersection by a traffic control signal at the same time as or
following the showing of a green light, the driver of a vehicle
approaching the signal shall stop before reaching the closer of
(a) the signal, or
(b) the nearest crosswalk, if any, in the vicinity of the signal,
unless such a stop cannot be made in safety.

 

Ontario Traffic Act
Part X Section 144, subsection 15:

Amber light

(15) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed with caution. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (15).



Yeah, it is a law that has some built in "Judgement Call" in it, but it is still a law that unfortunately you broke. The key is that if you fight it, yoy are the one that has to prove that on that day at that time in those conditions you could not safely stop in time. The rub here is that at the same time you are proving this, you have to also prove that your vehicle speed was in keeping with the road conditions, not just that you were under the posted maximum.

The bottom line is that even though it is a law that has some latitude built in, it is still a law that you were judged to have broken by a person who has the authority to make those judgement calls. Personally, I'd say pay it and move on with your life... consider it a shitty lesson learned. If you do want to fight it, remember a couple thigs: Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so saying that you "didn't know" wont help. Questionning the police man's judgement is a tough sell, as he is the one who has been given the authority to police the laws and he has the experience doing so. Your best bet is appealing the fine. You can say "Yes, I went through the yellow light" but ask that the court reduce the fine or points penalty.

Let us know what happens!

 

I basically concur with Nick86's assessment, if that wasn't clear from my post - you'll have a tough time fighting the ticket, as it comes down to eye witness testimony of an officer with training and authority to enforce the law, against your inherently less proven judgment in the court's eyes - and trying to discredit his judgment is something you want to tread very lightly around. I certainly don't recommend hiring a "ticket fighter" - it's been my observation from time spent in traffic court, that in that relatively informal setting, bringing in the hired guns will mean that your credibility will be held up to a higher standard. Your best bet if the fine or points is the issue is to go in, speak to the prosecutor beforehand, and agree to plead guilty but request leniency on the fine/points - it never ceases to amaze me to see how often they will do this, even if they would probably have a slam dunk conviction - on minor offences in busy traffic courts, a "bird in the hand" seems to be a rule to live by, not just a motto.

I did successfully fight a yellow light ticket once, but the circumstances were drastically different; it was rush hour, the light changed just as I hit the crosswalk at a major intersection, I wasn't even at the speed limit, but certainly could not have stopped without being halfway thru the intersection. No officer witnessed, but a major collision occured - I was essentially rammed head on by a very aggressive dude in a pickup, against my small sports car, who decided to make a left turn even though there was no break in traffic. In spite of witnesses who attested to my car's speed, position, and when the light changed, and the pickup driver's scary aggression, the officer chose to believe truck dudes story that the light was already red when I entered the intersection, and wrote me a ticket, not him (left hand turn is always at fault, even if you have a green arrow and someone hits you running a red light while drunk - that really happened to a relative! - there is a huge onus when turning across traffic to do so only when safe, no matter what else happens).

I fought my ticket, not over the $50 fine, but the absolute certainty that I had been badly wronged. In court, the judge immediately threw out the charge without hearing formal testimony, because it was that obvious from my own and the witness statements (and fortunately, one of the witness did appear in court, so she would have been able to back up her statement), that the cop had gotten everything *** backwards. A complaint to the mayor's office and the Police Commission resulted in a letter of reprimand for the cop - it was pretty blatantly clear he had ignored the evidence and witnesses at the scene to make his own judgment, likely based on the fact I was 21 and driving a sporty car.

 

If i were you...i will fight it. If you dont...and lose some points, your insurance will go up (and that ticket will stay on your record for 4 years). You just need a good reason why you cant stop in time (before the white line) and you did proceed with caution and you DID made it accross the traffic light safely (therefore your judgement is also correct).

Get a court date and cross your finger that the cop wont show up (so your battle is easy).
If the cop shows up....its not neccessary you will lose...the judge may also forgive you<-- remember it will come down to one man to say you are right or wrong. If you lose the court, the judge may also reduce your fine/point lost...therefore you will be on the same spot as pleading guilty with explanation. But at least here you have a chance of having a clean record still.

let us know

-George

 

fight it

 

The issue isn't whether he made it across safely - the law is, stop on yellow, unless you cannot do so safely. The only acceptable reason for not stopping safely is being too close when the light changed, while still traveling within the speed limit and at a safe speed for conditions (ie, if it was wet or gravel on the road, you should have been below the maximum anyway). A single ticket should not cause your insurance to go up - it's multiple tickets within a given time frame (varies from 2-6 years, depending on company), which will only affect you if you change companies, or if you reach the maximum or get a suspension on points, prompting the authorities to actually notify your insurer. I'm not trying to be a killjoy here, but you should have a realistic view of the cost/benefits of fighting, vs pleading to a reduced fine/points. From what you said earlier, it sounds like you proceeded not because you couldn't have stopped, but because you thought with no other traffic, it qualified as "safe to proceed"- a misunderstanding of what yellow means. And not knowing the law is no defense in court.
If you fight and are convicted, it is unlikely the judge or prosecutor will decide at that point to reduce your fine or points - at that point you just negotiate for time to pay, if you cannot pay immediately. Unless the cop doesn't show (and that rarely happens, time in court is time on the clock, so its an easy day or half day for the officer), your chances are honestly slim, unless there is some mitigating circumstance (ie, the officer was poorly positioned to judge your distance to the stop line). Working on the likely 95% probability he shows, the officer will have dated notes on the case, outlining the specifics of why he thought a charge was merited, which the court views favourably as assurance against the fog of forgetfulness - and is why I suggested if you have real justification for not stopping, you make your own, take pictures, etc. There's a reason it takes forever for an officer to get back to you with your ticket, and it isn't filling in a few blanks on a summons or running your license and plate on the computer - he's documenting things, right then. Sure, without witnesses, it comes down to one person's judgment against another's, but one of those people has a lot more cred with the court, and it ain't you. That's why I suggest playing the stronger odds of pleading for reduced points or fine, rather than the all-or-nothing of actually going to trial - unless you're quite sure of yourself the ticket is bullshit, and can confidently argue that before the judge, prosecutor, and officer.

The only time I've heard or seen a cop not show for court, was my parents fighting a speeding ticket issued in a small BC city - and the circumstance there was a civilian fatality in a high-speed pursuit hours earlier, which had the local RCMP detachment pretty tied up. Everyone got off that morning apparently, even a guy who initially entered a guilty plea and just asked for time to pay, and then asked to change his plea when he realized no cops had showed (the judge must have been particularly charitable).

 

An afterthought - I do actually recommend going to court if you can afford the time off work or school, even if you plead it out - it's quite enlightening to see the processes, and if you stay for a half day, you'll learn a lot about the law, and what does/doesn't work in court (I always have been there for a whole session, because any charges actually going to trial go to the end of the docket, and I don't go if I'm not pretty sure I'm right and can win).

 

Alright guys thanx. Some of you had alot more to say than i'd like to read but i get what each of you have to say. I'll just have to get lucky. I won't have to go to court for like another 6 months or more anyway. I don't even care about paying 180 i just don't want any points taking off my license cause insurance sucks.

 

yea...in ontario it is 50-50 chances the cops wont show up....

personally i know that I and kevin (nismo convert86) got away with a traffic ticket. And you dont need to hire anyone either....fight it yourself.

Anyways...what is the speed limit on that street?? and what kind of car are you driving??
If you are driving an old beater....tell the judge that that car does not have "abs" and jamming the brake will stop the car pass the white line (therefore you are judging that going thru the yellow light is a safer thing to do). You are the owner of the car and knows your car best.

Losing point/s is a big matter for the insurance company in ontario. Even if you have only 1 ticket (but if you lose more than 3 points your insurance comp will raise your premium).

 

what was the weather like at th time of the offense? if it was wet or snowy out that would also mean you would have to begin to stop further back to safely stop at the line. as such, if you felt that attempting to stop where you were would only cause a slide then in accordance with the law you were unable to stop.

 

I don't normally post in these type of threads since I am bound by what I say

But I want to clear up some misconceptions.

1. Many believe that you can avoid an insurance hike by eliminating demerit points. I am not an insurance broker but I know that insurance companies raise rates based on conviction not just demerit points. So you have to aim for an acquital or withdrawal if you want to avoid all insurance ramifications.

2. Paralegals vs Lawyers - It is hard to find a lawyer that will go to traffic court since his/her rates maybe prohibitive, which is where paralegals come in. I know of some excellent paralegals and some terrible ones so be careful choosing.

Be most concerned with those that offer the "we win or it is free" guarantee.
I'll give you an example:
Person A faces a $300 ticket.
Hires a "we win or it is free" paralegal and pays them $300 to defend them.
Paralegal argues the ticket down to $100, pays the $100 out of the $300 you provided and walks away with $200 for doing something you can do yourself.

3. It is pointless discussing your defence without seeing the disclosure/evidence against you. You have to request it to get it. You need to do this in writing. My personal approach is to try and ask for it about 2-3 weeks prior to your scheduled trial date. This would be considered enough time for a crown to get it prior to your trial date but realistically may not happen. (You write to the Crown, the Crown writes to the Officer and then the Officer has to create the disclosure and give it to the Crown and then notify you that it is available.) The goal is that the crown is forced to adjourn your initial trial date and all of that delay is attributable to the Crown.

4. Delay - I am sure everyone has heard of tickets being thrown out for delay. Technically this is an 11b charter defense that can only be advanced at a trial. In Ontario I have seen matters won on an 11b application where there has been 13-18 months of delay not attributable to the accused. Hence the importance of the timing of a disclosure request. This is a defense to use in all traffic and criminal matters and is worth trying to achieve. You do have to make an application and file materials but there are a number of good online sites that can help you with forwarding an 11b motion. Even if you are unsuccesful at getting an 11b the adjournments involved can result in a change in your abstract that may allow you to take a conviction without your insurance company penalizing you. Your abstract only carries convictions for the previous three years.
I'll give another example:
Person A has a July 05 conviction for speeding on their abstract.
In January 07 Person A gets pulled over for speeding again.
Person A requests a trial date and is given November 07
Person A requests disclosure in October 07
Person A attends November Trial date with confirmation of disclosure request and it is adjourned August 08 to provide disclosure.
By the next trial date Person A's abstract is clear.
So winning or losing this case may not matter as much anymore.

5. Cops not showing up
This all depends on what type of situation you were pulled over in. For example if it is a radar trap then expect the cop to attend as there will be a slew of other matters he has to deal with from the same day. This is also where an adjournment can help reduce the chances of a cop's appearance on the next date as he/she may have less matters on the docket.

6. When you attend at a trial never check in, just wait for your matter to be called. I have watched cops leave because they think a person is not going to show up and can't be bothered to wait around. If you check in they know you are there. As long as you are in the courtroom when your matter is called nothing is going to happen other than it taking some time for your matter to be heard.

7. You can always resolve a matter on your trial date. There is nothing detrimental in waiting to the last minute to resolve. The Crown does not have the time to argue every matter in court so they are more than eager to deal.

8. Even if you are convicted there is an appeal process that can be used to delay a matter even further.

Each and every situation is different and there is no cookie cutter solution but I start every matter the same way with regards to a disclosure request and take it from there. In close always fight it but do it with a plan.

There is lots of good info and a sample disclosure request letter at the below site:

http://www.roadwarriors.ca/resources...isclosure.html

 

That's a lot of great info Lawyer! Definately worth more digging on those sites.


You: My car does not have "abs" and jamming the brake will stop the car pass the white line (therefore you are judging that going thru the yellow light is a safer thing to do). I am the owner of the car and know the car best.

Judge: Knowing your car then, you should have been travelling at a lower rate of speed to make up for your lack of ABS and longer stopping distances. Appeal denied.

 

how far are you from the white line when the light swicth to yellow??? (i believe yellow light stays for 3 sec???). Afterall many runs yellow light and only those that drive half the speed limit able to stop before the white line. But next thing you know you get ticket for "driving too slow" (<-- my aunty got this).

Well...you got about 6 months to think over a good reason "why you went thru that yellow light". Remember you are innocence untill proven guilty in the court of the law so start thinking that you are innocense and fight that case to the last drop of blood.

Running a red light may be "lost battle" to fight and remember dont hire those "xcopper" but hire charn....

 

If this infraction involves loss of points, then you may proceed as per the preceeding posts. But check your MTO rules. Here in Québec, "running" a yellow light is the same price as a red light, but without the loss of points. When you fight your red light offenses, most judges will grant you a running the yellow light infraction if your story seems decent and consistant. It's a way for them to still charge you the fine, but without the loss of points.

But, if you're charged with the yellow light infraction in the first time... ummm.. I don't know how you could fight it. Clever cop.