Contesting a Photo Radar Ticket

[lone wolf]

They won't now.... ;-)

 

[L Gilbert]

And yet people slow down because theyre there. How does it skirt due process exactly?

It doesn't. The laws are posted on the net. I posted that the Constitution isn't being violated, IMO, and provided to link and the sections in the link to read. Got no answer from Boober.
He was mumbling about facing the accuser, and we don't have that here in Canada. That's an American issue. We have rioghts to a fair and speedy trial.
For another thing, the cameras are to take pics of people infracting the laws. The cams in no way inhibit due process. If they did then any criminal could defeat prosecutors because they were caught on cam or triggered an alarm system.

PHOTO RADAR is nothing but a tax grab as it penalizes the owner of the vehicle not the drive. That is the main reason it was tossed from BC.

They could have rewritten the rules to state that if the driver could prove they weren't driving or else could prove who actually was driving, they would be excused from the charge.

I have to agree with Boomer here. I see this as unconstitutional on a few different points.

First, if you have ever received one of these things you notice there is an affidavit on the back where somebody 'swears' it was the owner of the vehicle. I highly doubt the operator of the camera unit can identify the owner or driver and a positive identification is a required piece of the puzzle for removing reasonable doubt. I know for a fact here in Edson the person swearing the affidavit is one of our bylaw officers yet the camera units are operated by a private contractor which muddies the waters further.

That's not a Constitutional matter.

Second, we DO have a right to confront our accusers and I highly doubt they can get the camera to testify with answers to any questions I might ask.

In the States yes. I provided the link and the probable sections of the Canadian Constitution where any such Canadian "right" would exist if it did. People seem to have ignored that, though, and keep yammering about "rights to face the accuser".

]quote]Third, the private contractor is not a sworn peace officer (hence the bylaw officer swearing the affidavit on the ticket) so therefore they are not lawfully allowed to charge you with anything. They are also paid a percentage of the take from the ticket so they are not really impartial in that they have a vested interest in handing out as many tickets as possible so one could question the validity of any calibration or reporting.[/quote]Also not a Constitutional matter. I am pretty sure that all the private contractors do is hand the info over to the authorities and let them deal with the paperwork they are so good at.

I wish you all the best luck if you persue a challenge Boomer.

Beyond that do what happened in BC....get everyone to ask for a court date instead of just paying up and clog the system so bad it costs them more than they collect. Also make sure every MLA knows if it doesn't get revoked they will not be getting re-elected.

Ditto that.

The camera doesn't accuse you of anything, the photo does.

Actually, photos are just evidence. The Crown or whatever does the accusing.

That's it.. That's it.. I will drive my Texas car around.. they won't send camera tickets to Texas

lol Really? Too bad the States sends traffic tickets up here.

Surveillance cameras convict a "person" in the act of a crime.

Traffic cameras, convict the owner of the car.. not the "person" committing the crime.

Courts do the convicting using the evidence supplied by the cameras.

As I said if it took the photo of the front plate plus the driver.. fine. But Alberta does not have a front plate, so the camera "assumes" the owner of the car is the driver and thus punishes the owner.. under an assumption of guilt.

... unless you can prove you weren't driving whgen the cam snapped the pic.

yup as target practice. :lol:

hehe So what's stopping you from scooting around shooting cameras?

I suggest a nice big ball hitch.

I suggest staying within the rules of the road. It'd make any discussion about the issue moot and/or hypothetical.

Also, for a post above, aren't people permitted to use a cellphone while driving if it's used to call emergency personnel?

Not unless it's hands free. Otherwise you have to pull over.

Lol, i wont drive a vehicle with anything that can get me ticketed for driving it. Obscuring your license plate can earn you a hefty fine

Yep. Here, too.

Btw boomer, ive had one speeding ticket in my entire time driving (it was due to a ploice blitz to drive home a change in speed limit near my parents house and i got dinged going 10 over, which the cops dropped down so i had to pay something like a 50 dollar fine) and no accidents, not even a scratch, driving everything from my 3/4 ton long box, to my mazda 3, from one end of the province to the other.

Btw boomer, ive had one speeding ticket in my entire time driving (it was due to a ploice blitz to drive home a change in speed limit near my parents house and i got dinged going 10 over, which the cops dropped down so i had to pay something like a 50 dollar fine) and no accidents, not even a scratch, driving everything from my 3/4 ton long box, to my mazda 3, from one end of the province to the other.

Damn. Wife got snagged for 20 over a month or so ago. The cop said she had a relatively clean slate and had not had an infraction for years so he dropped the fine down.

Damn. Wife got snagged for 20 over a month or so ago. The cop said she had a relatively clean slate and had not had an infraction for years so he dropped the fine down.

 

[JamesBondo]

Alberta's laws allow traffic violates to be 'served' through unregistered mail. Which means, it is possible for someone to not get their ticket in the mail, completely miss their court date, then get convicted while not present.

Other provinces, as well as all other lower courts in Alberta, require a method of 'service' that ensures that the accused has received a summons to court before their is a conviction.

I believe that convicting someone without their knowledge of the alleged charge is clearly against our Charter Rights.

I hope some grumpy redneck in Alberta contests this someday. I'll bet that it will force the gov to rewrite their definition of 'service'