Fight Your Speeding Tickets

MySense

Appendix D. Speed kills? Or does it?

You have heard it so many times from the government, police, and the insurance industry:
"SPEED KILLS."
"Speed is a direct cause of almost all fatal or major accidents."
"Speed limits exist for a reason."
"We should target all sorts of aggressive/dangerous driving, including speeding."
Not surprisingly, according to the 1996 Ontario Road Safety Annual Report,

449,508 speeding tickets were convicted, accounting for 60% of all Highway Traffic Act related offences. If we estimate a 90% conviction rate, close to 500,000 speeding tickets were handed out in Ontario during the year 1996.
But have you ever wondered why almost nobody obeys the speed limits, we haven't yet all died of motor vehicle collisions? Maybe they lied to us?
Not quite. They are just very good at manipulating and twisting the meaning of the term "speeding", and use it to their maximum advantage to hit home their propaganda. They even managed to do it so subtlely that the masses get brainwashed into thinking that speeding really kills.
First, let's clarify what I mean by "speeding", and later we will see how this gets twisted so subtlely that you don't even notice at first sight.
"Speeding" is defined as driving a motor vehicle in excess of the posted limit by 1km/h or more. This is a fact and a law. If you are caught driving 61km/h in a 60km/h zone, you are speeding and it is illegal.
Following me? Ok, read on.

"But driving 61km/h in a 60km/h zone isn't necessarily dangerous," you may wonder. That's right, any competent driver knows that the maximum safe speed at which one can drive at is affected by a number of factors:

1. the road condition (dry, wet, snowy, icy etc.)
2. the vehicle's mechanical condition (drive-train, tires, brakes, steering etc.)
3. the driver's ability (fatique, age, emotion, mind concentration, drug influence etc.)
4. the traffic condition (dense, moderate, light)
5. visibility (day, night, fog, snow storm, heavy rain etc.)

These conditions change every minute and a fixed speed limit sign is hardly useful. Collisions occur because drivers fail to heed one or more of the 5 factors above, not solely because a magic number painted on a white sign is exceeded.

Now this is the catch. When they tell you that speed kills, the term "speed" really means "too fast for conditions", which is precisely why collisions occur. But perhaps more than 98% of the "speeding" tickets are cited for "too fast for speed limit", rather than too fast for conditions. When the police say they want to target dangerous drivers (including speeders), what they really do is that they setup a speed trap on an open highway on a warm and sunny day (the least dangerous condition to go fast).
This is how the government, police and insurance industry so subtlely manipulate the meaning of "speed" to get you to buy in to their propaganda.

In addition, the insurance companies intelligently use this double meaning of "speeding" to charge otherwise safe speeders extra premium while assuming no risk. They don't even bother to make the distinction between different levels of speeding. A 1km/h over ticket has absolutely the same effect as a 40km/h over ticket. If you are caught speeding 1km/h over twice in three years, you are a dangerous high risk driver and the insurance company can refuse to insure you, and can refer you to the Facility Association, which is the high risk insurance group. You may find yourself paying premium that is even larger than your car loan payments plus ownership costs.

So the government, the police and the insurance industry have made it look like "speeding" is a really bad thing. If slow is what they believe to be safe, then how can they explain the use of unmarked patrol cars? Isn't a marked police patrol car more effective than an unmarked one? When motorists see a marked patrol car, they will voluntarily slow down. Then isn't the goal already achieved? What is the purpose of using unmarked cop cars anyway? Deliberately setting the speed limit too low, and then sending a cop out in an unmarked vehicle to sneak behind motorists, is highway robbery disguised as traffic safety enforcement. When you have been given a speeding ticket, you have been robbed. The robber is the plaintiff and the victim is the accused.

Why does Ontario disallow the use of radar detectors? Ask any radar detector user in the U.S.:
"What will you do when the detector sounds an alarm?"
"SLOW DOWN."

Isn't the "safety" goal already achieved? But they don't want this to happen, because they want you to pass that speed trap at an illegal speed and therefore hit you with a ticket. It almost makes you forget that speeding limits were for safety! Repeat after me: speed limits have absolutely nothing to do with safety.

The government might be telling you that almost all accidents are due to driving in excess of the speed limits so and so, and they have statistics to prove that. This point is moot because if the speed limits are set too low then no wonder why all accidents happen at above them. Imagine if all speed limits are 1km/h, then all accidents will have to be due to driving in excess of speed limits. This tells you absolutely nothing useful because some other factors such as alcohol might be related, but they put the blame on speed instead. One can interpret statistics by correlation in anyway they wish. If I say 99% of the drivers who are involved in accidents did not wear rocket ship underpants (Calvin and Hobbes), then should the Government make a law and require all motorists to wear such underpants while driving? This is also a perfectly valid correlation, albeit a ridiculous one.

According to the same 1996 Ontario study, this correlation is not even true. Of the 384,453 vehicle collisions involving property damage, personal injury and fatality, only 25,943 were deemed to be speed related. That's a whooping 6.7%. Other major factors include following too close, failure to yield right-of-way, inattentive driving and so on. Yet, 60% of all the Highway Traffic Act convictions were for speeding! It seems like they are targeting the wrong group of people. If we leave out the equipment violations, administrative tickets such as vehicle registration and other non-moving violations, 4 out of 5 traffic tickets were speeding tickets. And they keep telling us that speeding tickets were for safety! And that they only target the "dangerous drivers who jeopardize the safety of our kids and other road users".

Now you know that those safety bureaucrats are just a bunch of liars, but they are really honest when they told you that "speed limits exist for a reason". They didn't provide you with a clear answer, but it is pretty obvious: it is a healthy source of revenue. Let's take a look at the 449,508 speeding tickets convicted in 1996. 241,831 of them were convicted for 15km/h or less over. If the average fine for those tickets was $80, while the remaining 207,677 tickets carry an average fine of $150, we are looking at a whooping 50 million dollars, and this does not include other traffic offences and parking tickets. Keep in mind that a speeding fine of $150 is a very conservative estimate. When this much money is at stake here, it becomes clear why the government, police and the insurance industry all collaborate their efforts to rationalize and legalize this blatant extortion. How do they do it? The following is a few simple steps:

1. Underpost all speed limits. Bureaucrats, instead of qualified traffic engineers, take control.
2. Distort statistics and use false correlation to get you to think that speed really kills.
3. Pass enough laws to punish speeding.
4. Remove as much due process protection as is legally possible.
5. Adjust speeding fines to be just below the motorists' tolerance (above which most people will start to fight their citations aggressively where most profit is gone).
6. Catch speeding drivers in a sneaky manner, i.e. by using unmarked patrol cars, instant-on radar, hiding in bushes etc.
7. Charge convicted drivers extra premium on their insurance policies, while taking no significant extra risk.
8. When the lies of "speed kills" are starting to expose, they start to coin other terms such as "dangerous/aggressive driving", "road rage" and associate them with "speeding". Then, mix in with a bit of emotional tactics such as "it's for our kids".

Now when you have understood the truth behind "Speed Kills" and the purpose of speed limits, please don't further support this highway robbery by sending in the fine without first fighting it. When you fight your ticket you are making them work for your money. Court costs are tagged onto your fine whether you fight it or not, so there is no reason for you to just pay up. The majority of tickets are paid by mail and credit card charges without the trials actually happening. And you get to pay your own postage too when you send in your payment. So I don't know how most of the "court costs" are spent when processing a payment only takes a few minutes of a court clerk's time. This speeding ticket system is not only the most legalized crime in the country, it is also a multi-million-dollar business. If we take the profit out by fighting every ticket,
the system will automatically collapse.

MySense

Appendix E. Other related cases

1. How to deal with a photo radar ticket

Although photo radar is already gone for good in Ontario, there are still many installations throughout other provinces in Canada and in the United States. Legislation were in place to serve vehicle owners photo radar tickets by mail, even though photo radar has been scrapped by the provincial government, the options are still open for municipalities. Ticket service legislations are different in different provinces and states, so check to make sure that your province/state does not allow serving moving violations by mail. If such is the case, the best strategy to deal with such a ticket is to ignore it. If the ticket is not served to you in person by a law enforcement officer, they can do absolutely nothing to you if you simply ignore it. You are not legally responsible to check your mailbox, nor to read all your mail. So if you just toss out the photo radar ticket in the trash, you cannot be held accountable.

In most cases, the owner of the vehicle, instead of the driver, is charged the speeding offence. The government can only demand money from the owner, but it cannot apply demerit points to the owner's driver license, nor suspend the owner's license if the fine is in default. However, it can deny the owner from renewing the license plate sticker until the fine is paid in full. By now you should be able to realize that this is legalized extortion in its worst form. In BC, the situation is a little bit better since serving moving violations to vehicle owners by mail is not allowed. So if a photo radar ticket is ignored, the government has to attempt service in person.

However, when a photo radar ticket is challenged, it is almost always dismissed because the defendant cannot face his/her accuser. Imagine the photo radar operator is being brought to court to testify and cannot run his photo radar installation for the day - major "loss" in revenue big time!

Check the laws in your province/state, ignoring a photo radar ticket could be your easiest and most hassle-free option. If they don't bother to actually patrol the highways and pull people over for dangerous driving, but instead mail vehicle owners with speeding tickets, why would you bother to send in a payment to further support this? Maybe you should simply mail a photo of a cheque to them?

2. Careless driving tickets

Unlike speeding offences, careless driving is not an absolute liability offence. Simply put, if the driver has taken all possible steps like any reasonable man would do to avoid it ("due diligence"), but eventually couldn't, he/she cannot be convicted of careless driving. An excuse is a valid defence to a careless driving charge. In order to convict you, the prosecution not only has to establish that the action was dangerous, it is also required to prove your negligence. The hard part is the latter.

I have received a couple of emails from people who read this page, asking how to deal with careless/reckless driving tickets. In all situations the defendants weren't doing anything particularly dangerous, only because the police officers didn't know what charges to lay, and just wrote down careless/reckless driving. This is ignorance by the police officer and should be stopped. In all cases the defendants were offered plea bargains by the prosecution voluntarily. The prosecution knew that they couldn't win. So they would like to strike a deal, make people pay up in another offence.

The bottom line is, you should always plead not guilty to a careless driving charge. Careless driving is a very serious offence, if you are convicted, it doesn't look good on your driving record. Insurance companies will immediately hit you with a big hike in premiums. If you plead not guilty, you have an option to offer and/or accept a plea bargain, or simply take it to a full trial and beat it down. Hiring an attorney is advisable. You should always testify for yourself, the prosecution will have a very hard time proving your intention of committing the offence.

3. LIDAR (laser) tickets

Contrary to common belief, LIDAR is not another form of radar. Strictly speaking, it is technically incorrect to refer LIDAR to as laser radar. LASER stands for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission Radiation. Suffice it to say, laser is some kind of light with special properties. Contrary to radar, which works on the doppler shift principle, LIDAR works on the time-distance-velocity relationship. Since the speed of light is a known constant, therefore one can derive both the range and speed of the target object by using the relationship. Laser can be visible or invisible to the human eye, depending on its frequency. LIDAR does not need any FCC certificates since the FCC does not regulate that part of the spectrum.

When compared to regular radar, LIDAR has a much narrower beam angle. A well trained police officer can accurately pick out a single target from a group of cars. Even the best police officer can't do this with a regular radar gun. A LIDAR is almost always used in stationary mode since a moving patrol car will make targeting the laser beam extremely difficult. One important property of laser is that it goes through glass. Normally, a LIDAR detector is useless since when it goes off, the cop has already got a reading and it is also time to pull over. But when the cop is targeting the car ahead of you, some of the laser beam goes through the windshield of the leading car and is picked up by your LIDAR detector, then you will have time to slow down before the cop turns to target you.

LIDAR has not received judicial notice in many states, therefore when contested, expert testimony is required to demonstrate that the technology works as advertised. The court simply cannot take for granted that the theory of using laser to detect speed is valid. (Note that even if regular radar has received judicial notice, the prosecution still needs to prove every time that a radar unit is accurate, expert testimony is however no longer required.) If the prosecution do not have an expert witness, then the LIDAR evidence will be striken and they will have nothing against you. Qualifying an expert witness is more tedious than simply calling a regular witness, so you want the prosecution to do their job properly if they want easy money (they are glad that not many people know this).

As of the date this article is updated, Ontario does not have judicial notice for LIDAR. When you are given a LIDAR ticket, always fight it in court. LIDAR manufacturers are reluctant to bring their experts to court to testify, because this would reveal their patented technology and company proprietary information to the public. No expert testimony means no case for the Crown, and you would be free. Why would you not go to court for a sure win?

MySense

4. Impaired driving charges

Also called DUI (Driving Under Influence of alcohol/drugs) or DWI (Driving While Impaired). This is a serious offence and there is no reason not to obtain the services of a lawyer. I do not promote drinking and driving. A lot of people are misled by the fact that as long as you are not over the legal BAC limit (0.08% in Ontario), you are OK. So many people tend to think, "hey, I will have just one or two beers and I won't be over the limit." But this is wrong. You CAN be charged Impaired Driving under the Criminal Code of Canada even if you are under the limit. If in the opinion of the arresting officer that you cannot safely operate a motor vehicle while under the influence, you can be charged with impaired driving. The BAC limit of 0.08% draws the line where you WILL be charged Impaired Driving under the Criminal Code no matter how sober you appear to be.

Please don't drink and drive.

5. Parking tickets

Normally I wouldn't advocate contesting parking tickets, since they aren't worth your time and energy involved for such a small fine. Parking violations do not stay on your driving record nor your insurance policy. If you feel that the city is ripping you off with a questionable parking ticket, the best to do is to plead guilty with an explanation, and your fine will almost always get reduced to $10 or $20, depending on how imaginative your excuse is. Sometimes if you face a sympathetic judge you may even get a "suspended sentence" which essentially means $0 fine.

Of course, you can always try your luck with a not guilty plea. My estimates indicate that close to 50% of the disputed parking tickets are dismissed due to no-show of the officer. However when the officer does show up, you are in for an uphill battle because the judge and the prosecutor seem like playing in the same team. You can't expect a judge to be impartial when the city has the incentives to raise as much money as possible from parking fines. The city by-law officers enforce the parking regulations, and the city gets to retain all the parking fines. You will be surprised at how many small towns are almost fully funded by traffic fines. In these cases you can't expect reasonable rules and fair treatment. In most cities, you can't mail in your ticket to request a trial, you have make a trip to the city's by-law office, and fill out a form to do so. Of course when you approach the clerk, he/she will try his/her best to talk you out of going to court and ask you questions like, "well are you actually guilty? Then why don't you not waste our taxpayers' money and pay the fine instead?" You don't even have to be polite to him/her when he/she tries out these dirty tactics. Just tell him/her, "are you trying to deny my right to request a trial or what?"

I have one case which I'd love to share with you where I won big time just recently over a disputed parking ticket. To cut the long story short, the officer handed the ticket over to someone appeared to be a passenger of mine while I drove to find another parking space. Since the law never allowed serving a parking ticket to someone other than the river/owner, (otherwise it has to be affixed to the windshield), therefore the ticket was not properly served, and thus was invalid.

I received a "failure to pay" notice in the mail (another scam), and disputed the ticket in court. The officer showed up, and he testified what happened, as if he doesn't even know the proper service procedure. After the officer has finished, both the prosecutor and the judge still pretended the ticket was valid, even though it is pretty clearly spelled out in the law book that it wasn't. If the judge were interested in justice he would have interrupted the officer and have the charge dismissed.

Then it was my turn to cross-examine the officer. First of all I made sure that the officer was positive that he handed the ticket to someone appeared to him as a passenger, and he agreed. Then I pulled out the Provincial Offences Act, read out aloud the part about proper service, turned my face to the judge and asked the court to dismiss the charge based on the grounds that the ticket was never properly served. I had to tell you the judge almost fell off his chair, the officer's jaws nearly dropped to the floor and the prosecutor was just plainly surprised. The courtroom was filled with a stunned silence for at least a few minutes. Meanwhile both the judge and the prosecutor pulled out their own law books, flipped the pages around, looking for a word to say. Finally silence was broken as the judge ordered a 10-minute recess so that he could go back to his officer to look for case laws. The spectators were just looking at me, amazed.

Needless to say I won the case. Seeing the dejected look on the cop's face and the judge's embarrassment was no doubt one of life's most precious moments. This stunning victory doesn't come without doing homework though. Spotting a rare technicality like this requires knowledge of the relevant laws and the process involved. I will bet the judge himself hasn't seen such technicalities ever before, and someone so dedicated to his defence. For me, I only view this as an opportunity to practise my in-court skills. Going to court just as a spectator to see how trials unfold is a very good education particularly when you have a speeding trial coming up. If you have a chance to dispute some minor parking tickets as an exercise it will be even better.

6. Red light camera tickets
As much as I hate photo radar, red light cameras are equally obnoxious. Please note that I do not promote running red lights. I only oppose to all kinds of automated traffic enforcement. When you are caught by a machine, then a few weeks later you receive a ticket in the mail, there is no way you can accurately recall all the details surrounding the offence. How can you prepare a full answer to the charge when you can't even remember anything that happened at an unknown time a few weeks ago?
Furthermore, it is the legislation that takes away the due process to facilitate prosecution that is worst. Namely, using only a photo as the sole piece of evidence from the Crown to establish a prima facie case against the defendant is justice at its lowest. To our Ontario readers, the province has given the green light to red light cameras, and they are coming to an intersection near you. As of today, I still do not know what legislation will be in place to partner this government new toy (and another cash cow with a safety disguise). The Insurance Bureau of Canada has very quickly offered $1 million in funding to help support this campaign. You can only conclude that this initial "investment" will pay off very soon with premium surcharges as a result of red light running convictions. If you don't already know, the Insurance Bureau of Canada is a group which represents the common interest of the insurance industry, which is to make as much profit as possible, from you, the motorist.

Red light running is a serious problem, but I highly doubt that red light cameras are the right answer. Crashes occur at intersections because drivers fail to see a red light due to too many distractions. However the majority of red light running is when drivers hurry through an intersection the split second after the light just turns red. Even the most senseless driver won't deliberately drive into a crowded intersection. Red light cameras (and their decoys) won't solve the distracted driver problem, which is what is killing people. The solution is to improve the design of the intersection, and to post more warning signs ahead so that drivers won't fail to heed a red light. If you oppose red light cameras, please write to your MPs and voice out your concern.

The legislation to support red light cameras will be similar to that of photo radar. Essentially, a violation ticket will be mailed to the vehicle owner, and if the owner fails to respond to the ticket, conviction will be entered in the owner's absence. The fine will be in default if it is not paid on time, and the owner will be denied renewal of the license plate stickers until the fine is paid in full. However, demerit points will not be applied and license suspension is not possible. It looks like the province is not really interested in justice. When a driver went through a red light, punish the owner. It doesn't care if it can't apply demerit points, but the fine has to be paid. Please fight your red light camera ticket and vent your disapproval with your not guilty plea

MySense

Appendix F. Demerit points

Note: This only applies in Ontario, Canada. The laws may be different in other provinces and in the U.S.
• Driver of bus failing to stop at unprotected railway crossings

• Failure to remain at scene of an accident	7 points
• Careless driving • Racing • Exceeding speed limit by 50 km/h or more • Failing to stop for school bus	6 points
• Driver of bus failing to stop at unprotected railway crossings	5 points
• Exceeding speed limit by 30 to 49 km/h • Following too closely	4 points
• Exceeding speed limit by 16 to 29 km/h • Driving through, around or under railway crossing barrier • Failing to yield right-of-way • Failing to obey a stop sign, traffic signal or railway crossing signal • Failing to obey directions of police officer • Drive wrong way on a divided highway • Failing to report an accident to a police officer • Improper driving where highway divided into lanes • Crowding driver's seat • Wrong way on one-way street or highway • Driving or operating a vehicle on a closed highway • Cross divided highway where no proper crossing provided	3 points
• Failing to lower headlamp beam • Improper opening of vehicle door • Prohibited turns • Towing of persons on toboggans, bicycles, skis, etc. prohibited • Failing to obey prescribed signs • Pedestrian crossover • Failing to share road • Improper right/left turn • Failing to signal • Unnecessary slow driving • Backing on a highway	2 points

When you accumulate 6 demerit points on your license, you will receive a letter from the Ministry of Transportation, urging you to improve your driving habits. When you reach 9 points, you will be required to attend an interview with the ministry. If in the interview you cannot offer a reason why your license shouldn't be suspended, your license will be suspended. When you reach 12 points, your license will be suspended.

Appendix G. Insurance risk points

Note: This only applies in Ontario, Canada. The laws may be different in other provinces and in the U.S.

At-fault accident (last 5 years)	2 points where four or more years of driving experience, 4 points with less experience
Criminal code or similar conviction (last 3 years)	4 points
Major conviction (last 3 years) examples: failing to report an accident, speeding in a school zone	2 points where four or more years of driving experience, 4 points with less experience
Minor conviction (last 3 years) examples: seat belt infraction, speeding, illegal turn, fail to yield	1 point where four or more years of driving experience, 2 points with less experience
No evidence of coverage under an automobile insurance policy for at least 12 months out of the last 24	4 points (no typo!)
Automobile insurance fraud (no time limit)	4 points
Material Misrepresentation (including failure to disclose on application form) (last 3 years)	4 points
Cancellation of a policy for non-payment of premium (last 3 years)	1 point

Note: Insurance risk points are not the same as driver license demerit points. Only if your driving record or insurance experience generates four or more insurance risk points can an automobile insurer refuse to insure you. Facility Association may be your only option if your record generates four or more insurance risk points. You cannot be referred to the FA unless your driving record generates four or more insurance risk
points.

Appendix H. Excerpts of relevant laws

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT
Definitions

"driver" means a person who drives a vehicle on a highway;
"driver's licence" means a licence issued under section 32 to drive a motor vehicle on a highway;
"highway", includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof;
"intersection" means the area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral curb lines or, if none, then of the lateral boundary lines of two or more highways that join one another at an angle, whether or not one highway crosses the other;
"median strip" means the portion of a highway so constructed as to separate traffic travelling in one direction from traffic travelling in the opposite direction by a physical barrier or a raised or depressed paved or unpaved separation area that is not intended to allow crossing vehicular movement;
"motor vehicle" includes an automobile, motorcycle, motor assisted bicycle unless otherwise indicated in this Act, and any other vehicle propelled or driven otherwise than by muscular power, but does not include a street car, or other motor vehicles running only upon rails, or a motorized snow vehicle, traction engine, farm tractor, self-propelled implement of husbandry or road-building machine within the meaning of this Act;
"roadway" means the part of the highway that is improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic, but does not include the shoulder, and, where a highway includes two or more separate roadways, the term "roadway" refers to any one roadway separately and not to all of the roadways collectively;
"trailer" means a vehicle that is at any time drawn upon a highway by a motor vehicle, except an implement of husbandry, a mobile home, another motor vehicle or any device or apparatus not designed to transport persons or property, temporarily drawn, propelled or moved upon such highway, and except a side car attached to a motorcycle, and shall be considered a separate vehicle and not part of the motor vehicle by which it is drawn;
"vehicle" includes a motor vehicle, trailer, traction engine, farm tractor, road-building machine, bicycle and any vehicle drawn, propelled or driven by any kind of power, including muscular power, but does not include a motorized snow vehicle or street car;

MySense

PART IX
RATE OF SPEED

128. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at a rate of speed greater than,
(a) kilometres per hour,
(i) on a highway not within a city, town, village, police village or built-up area, or
(ii) on a highway designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council as a controlled-access highway under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, whether or not such a highway is within a city, town, village, police village or built-up area;
(b) subject to clause (a), 50 kilometres per hour on a highway within a city, town, village, police village or built-up area;
(c) the rate of speed prescribed for motor vehicles on a highway in accordance with subsection (2), (4), (5), (6) or (7); or
(d) the maximum rate of speed posted in a construction zone designed under subsection (8).
(2) The council of a municipality and the trustees of a police village may, for motor vehicles driven on a highway or portion of a highway under its jurisdiction, by by-law prescribe a rate of speed different from the rate set out in subsection (1).
(3) The rate of speed prescribed under subsection (2) shall be 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 or 100 kilometres per hour.
(4) The council of a municipality and the trustees of a police village may by by-law prescribe a lower rate of speed for motor vehicles driven in any public park or exhibition ground than is prescribed in subsection (1), but the lower rate of speed shall not be less than 20 kilometres per hour.
(5) The council of a municipality and the trustees of a police village may by by-law,
(a) designate a portion of a highway under its jurisdiction that adjoins the entrance to or exit from a school and that is within 150 metres along the highway in either direction beyond the limits of the land used for the purposes of the school; and
(b) prescribes a rate a speed of 40 kilometres per hour for motor vehicles driven on the portion of a highway so designated on days on which school is regularly held and prescribe the time or times between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at which the speed limit is effective.
(6) The council of a municipality and the trustees of a police village may by by-law prescribe a lower rate of speed for motor vehicles passing over a bridge on a highway under its jurisdiction than is prescribed in subsection (1) or in a by-law passed under subsection (2), but the lower rate of speed shall not be less than 10 kilometres per hour and signs indicating the maximum rate of speed shall be posted in a conspicuous place at each approach to the bridge.
(7) The Minister may make regulations prescribing a rate of speed for,
(a) motor vehicles driven on a highway or portion of a highway within a provincial park;
(b) any class or classes of motor vehicles driven on the King's Highway or portion of the King's Highway whether or not the King's Highway is within a city, town, village or police village, and the rate of speed may be different for any period or periods of the day or night or direction of travel;
and
(c) motor vehicles driven on a highway or portion of a highway in territory without municipal organization.
(8) An official of the Ministry authorized by the Minister in writing may designate any part of the King's Highway as a construction zone, and every construction zone shall be so marked by signs in accordance with the regulations.
(9) A designation under subsection (8) is not a regulation within the meaning of the Regulations Act.
(10) Signs posting the maximum rate of speed at which motor vehicles may be driven in a construction zone may be erected in accordance with the regulations by an official of the Ministry.
(11) No by-law passed under subsection (2), (5) or (6) or regulation made under clause (7) (c) becomes effective until the highway or portion thereof affected by the by-law or regulation, as the case may be, is signed in accordance with this Act and the regulations.
(12) Where a by-law or regulation passed under this section becomes effective, the rates of speed prescribed in subsection (1) do not apply to the highway or portion of the highway affected by the by-law or regulation.
(13) The speed limits prescribed under this section or any regulation or by-law passed under this section do
not apply to,
(a) a fire department vehicle as defined in section 61 while proceeding to a fire or responding to, but not returning from, a fire alarm or other emergency call;
(b) a motor vehicle while used by a person in the lawful performance of his or her duties as a police officer; or
(c) an ambulance as defined in section 61 while responding to an emergency call or being used to transport a patient or injured person in an emergency situation.
(14) Every person who contravenes this section or any by-law or regulation made under this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable, where the rate of speed at which the motor vehicle was driven,
(a) is less than 20 kilometres per hour over the maximum speed limit, to a fine of $3 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the maximum speed limit;
(b) is 20 kilometres per hour or more but less than 35 kilometres per hour over the maximum speed limit, to a fine of $4.50 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the maximum speed limit;
(c) is 35 kilometres per hour or more but less than 50 kilometres per hour over the maximum speed limit, to a fine of $7 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the maximum speed limit; and
(d) is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the maximum speed limit, to a fine of $9.75 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the maximum speed limit.
(15) Subject to subsection 207 (7), where a court or judge has convicted a person for a contravention of this section and has determined that the person convicted was driving at a rate of speed of 50 or more kilometres per hour greater than the maximum speed limit, the court may suspend the driver's licence of the person for a period of not more than thirty days.
(16) In this section, "motor vehicle" includes street car.

CARELESS DRIVING
130. Every person is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle or street car on a
highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the
highway and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $1,000 or to
imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her licence or
permit may be suspended for a period of not more than two years.

REGULATION 615
SPEED LIMIT SIGNS

1.A speed limit sign,
(a) shall be not less than 60 centimetres in width and 75 centimetres in height;
(b) shall bear the word "maximum" in black letters not less than 10 centimetres in height on a white retro-reflective background;
(c) shall display in black numerals not less than 30 centimetres in height on a white retro-reflective
background the prescribed maximum rate of speed; and
(d) may display a tab sign not less than 20 centimetres in height and not less than 60 centimetres in width immediately below the speed limit sign and the tab sign shall bear the legend "km/h" in white retro-reflective letters not less than 10 centimetres in height on a black background, or a speed limit sign shall,
(e) be not less than 60 centimetres in width and 90 centimetres in height;
(f) bear the word "maximum" in black letters not less than 10 centimetres in height on a white retro-reflective background;
(g) display in black numerals not less than 30 centimetres in height on a white retro-reflective background the prescribed maximum rate of speed; and
(h) bear the legend "km/h" in white retro-reflective letters not less than 7.5 centimetres in height on a black background.
2. (1) Subject to section 4, where a maximum rate of speed other than that prescribed by subsection 128 (1) of the Act is prescribed for a highway in a city, town, village, police village or built-up area, speed limit signs shall be erected on the highway, in each direction of travel,
(a) not more than 600 metres apart where the speed limit prescribed is 60 kilometres per hour or less;
and
(b) not more than 900 metres apart where the speed limit prescribed is greater than 60 kilometres per hour and not more than 70 kilometres per hour.
(2) Where the maximum rate of speed for a highway in a built-up area more than 1,500 metres in length is that prescribed by subsection 128 (1) of the Act, speed limit signs shall be erected on the highway not more than 900 metres apart.
(3) Where the maximum rate of speed for a highway in a built-up area 1,500 metres or less in length is that prescribed by subsection 128 (1) of the Act, speed limit signs shall be erected on the highway not more than 300 metres apart.
3. The commencement of the part of a highway for which a maximum rate of speed is prescribed shall be indicated by a speed limit sign accompanied immediately below by a sign bearing the word "begins" in white retro-reflective letters not less than 12.5 centimetres in height on a black background.
4. A speed limit sign shall be erected on the right side of the highway, facing approaching traffic, not more than 4.5 metres from the roadway, and the bottom edge of the sign shall be not less than 1.5 metres or more than 2.5 metres above the level of the roadway.

MySense

REGULATION 615
GENERAL

44. The dimensions of a sign may be greater than the dimensions prescribed and illustrated in this Regulation so long as each dimension is increased and, when increased, has the same relation to the otherdimensions of the sign as the dimensions prescribed and illustrated in the Regulation have to each other.
45. A sign prescribed by this Regulation shall be so placed as to be visible at all times for a distance of atleast 60 metres to the traffic approaching the sign.
46.No person, other than a municipal corporation or other authority having jurisdiction over a highway,shall erect or maintain a sign prescribed by the Act and regulations.
47. Where the characteristics of a highway make it impracticable to place a sign or pavement markings as
specified in this Regulation, the sign or pavement markings shall be placed so as to comply as nearly as
practicable with those requirements.
48. No speed limit sign bearing the words "speed limit" is valid.

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES ACT
Interpretation

1.(1) In this Act,
(a) "certificate" means a certificate of offence issued under Part I or a certificate of parking infraction issued
under Part II;
(b) "court" means a provincial offences court or, where jurisdiction in respect of the offence is conferred
upon a provincial court (family division) by any other Act, the provincial court (family division);
(c) "judge" means a provincial judge;
(d) "justice" means a provincial judge or a justice of the peace;
(e) "offence" means an offence under an Act of the Legislature or under a regulation or by-law made under
the authority of an Act of the Legislature;
(f) "police officer" means a chief of police or other police officer or constable but does not include a speial
constable or by-law enforcement officer;
(g) "prescribed" means prescribed by the rules of the provincial offences courts;
(h) "prosecutor" means the Attorney General or, where the Attorney General does not intervene, means the
person who issues a certificate or lays an information and includes counsel or agent acting on behalf of
either of them;
(i) "provincial offences officer" means a police officer or a person designated under subsection 2;
(j) "set fine" means the amount of fine set by the court for an offence for the purpose of proceedings
commenced under Part I or II.

Final words

I urge everybody who is reading this document, to fight any speeding tickets you get. Only when we unite we can make this highway robbery system collapse. An overwhelmingly large amount of speeding tickets are being written every year, every month, every day. The government is counting on you to pay up as fast as possible to maximize the cash flow. If the court only has to handle 50 more cases per day - we don't even have to win every one of them - the system is going to be so held up that the province will start to think about the feasibility of writing speeding tickets at all.

This page is written for those who insist on driving at a comfortable, safe, efficient, but illegal speed, and was caught doing so. I am not here to promote driving the public roads at warp speed. If you think I am a kid with a sports car, who disregards all traffic laws, and could not get into enough accidents, you are dead wrong. I am an educated professional, and I don't even like driving fast. I only have a 4-door sedan with a measly 150hp 4-cylinder engine moving nearly 3200lbs of steel. It can't even go very fast. In all my driving years I have never had a single accident, not even a fender-bender, not even a scratch. I am responsible behind the wheel and I break speed limits for the sake of safety and efficiency. If you love to drive excessively fast, please take your car to a race track. If you are late for work, please wake up FIVE minutes earlier the next morning. Irresponsible drivers should face a stiffer penalty than just a monetary fine.

The purpose of this page is nothing unethical. Any person who is charged with an offence - be it a speeding offence or murder - even if he/she really did it - should deserve the best possible defense before a conviction can be entered. Pleading not guilty to an offence which the person really did commit is not lying. He/she is simply exercising his/her constitutional rights. Unfortunately, too many motorists don't know their rights, and are often told that a responsible person should just pay up. But the truth is, responsible people don't fear dealing with the consequences of their own actions, such as going to court to fight a ticket. After you have read this page, please help to spread the message.

FYST needs your support to keep this document circulated and updated. If this document saved you money, please consider donating some to the FYST foundation. I am happy to accept any amount that you kindly give, and all will be used to pay for expenses such as website space, connection time, and for research into more ticket fighting opportunities. All information on this site will continue to be provided absolutely free, and any new ticket fighting strategies will be added as soon as possible for everyone's benefit.
Please send donation to the following address, either in US or Canadian funds, cheques payable to
FYSTFoundation:
P.O.Box 23159
Ottawa, Ontario
K2A 4E2
Canada

Your generous support is greatly appreciated

Source