Delica Canada | Mitsubishi Van Club

FalcoColumbarius wrote:

As far as the stop light cameras go: I am in two minds:

• (1) The cameras (two) take the pictures if a motion sensor recognises a vehicle crossing the third line* when the light turns red. If the front wheels have cleared the third line or the vehicle is seen as turning right then the vehicle is presumed legal in it's actions. Fair enough.
  (2) By accepting the stop light cameras we are setting a precedent ~ that slippery slope...

Falco.

*The third line: one stop line and two pedestrian crossing lines.

I am against stop light cameras mainly because they increase traffic accidents from people trying to "emergency-stop" to avoid a ticket! (I can't remember where I read this).

FalcoColumbarius wrote:If the politicians pulled photo radar because it is not popular ~ then why are we still paying taxes?

Politicians do whatever they think will get them elected, preferably repeatedly, and whatever will best line their own pockets. sometimes that means doing things that are popular, sometimes not, if an issue is big enough for the general public, politicians take note, photo-radar became such a thing.

Doug Stead was prepared to take it to the Supreme Court Of Canada:

• "He spent five years and $100,000 fighting a $117 photo-radar ticket that he got in 1996. The legal battle ended up in the B.C. Court of Appeal. He attempted to appeal the verdict to the Supreme Court of Canada, but when Gordon Campbell’s Liberals won the 2001 election and declared that they would end photo radar, Canada’s top court refused to hear Stead’s case."(BIV Daily Business News ~ Tuesday, 11 August 2009).

The one has nothing to do with the other, The Supreme court didn't refuse the case based on the liberals winning the election, the supreme course refused to hear the case based on their view of the relevant case law and the previous verdicts. The Supreme Court doesn't refuse cases based on who is in power at the time.

Mr. Flibble is right, photo radar removes an individual's right to habeas corpus. Doug Stead's primary argument was that it put the onus on the individual to prove his/her innocence, which is contrary to "The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms: 11(d) "to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;.

No, he's dead wrong here. There is no presumption of guilt, if there were, they would simply send everyone a ticket and say "prove you weren't speeding" in fact they find proof that a specific vehicle is speeding, and then send a ticket to the owner of the vehicle as the most likely suspect.
In the case of Photo Radar in Alberta, they send the ticket directly to the GUILTY party (the owner of a vehicle caught exceeding the speed limit)

Here's a question: Let's say I am in court arguing a speeding ticket that I got in my Delica. During that time my neighbours see two complete strangers on my patio; when one pulls out a knife and mortally wounds the other person, who dies in a pool of blood on my patio. The killer has disappeared without a trace. Are you following me? Now we have a dead body on my patio but no killer. Does that make me responsible for his death because the murder took place on my patio?

No, but it DOES make you a suspect, you WILL be questioned, then you simply show evidence that you were not present at the time and you will be allowed to go free. This is the same as the photo radar, Proof of a crime is found, the most likely suspect is accused, and if they have an alibi they walk. it's the same process for ANY crime detected by ANY means.
Let's try YOUR version of the way the law should work.... Let's say you kill someone on your patio, nobody sees you do it, but you use your kitchen knife, which is found with blood stains on it in your house which is locked. your prints are on the handle of the knife, and a security camera next door sees someone of approximately your height and shape doing the murder.
Would you think that you should get away scott free simply because no actual person saw it happen? How is this ANY different?

If an automated photo radar camera happens to catch your license plate allegedly exceeding the speed limit: Does that for certain make you accountable? What if your vehicle was stolen?

If you reported it stolen, take that evidence to court and fight the ticket, you'll win.

If your gun shoots someone you will be held accountable, if you prove later that it was stolen, they'll change their mind, that doesn't mean you won't be a suspect at the start of the case. This is NO different.

Photo radar automatically assumes that you are the smoking gun.

So does EVERY investigation in to EVERY crime that has proof pointing your direction, up until you prove their proof wrong in a court room, that is what the courts are for. If you didn't commit the crime, you show that you have better proof than they do, and the judge decides which one he believes.

(1) The cameras (two) take the pictures if a motion sensor recognises a vehicle crossing the third line* when the light turns red. If the front wheels have cleared the third line or the vehicle is seen as turning right then the vehicle is presumed legal in it's actions. Fair enough.

They're actually better than that, (at least the ones in Calgary are) they take a picture of you entering the intersection, and another of you leaving the intersection, both with the red light clearly visible, therefore if you simply stop a little late and end up in the intersection no ticket is given because there is no picture of you leaving the intersection, similarly when you turn right the "leaving" picture shows no car.

(2) By accepting the stop light cameras we are setting a precedent ~ that slippery slope...[/list]

Yes, that slippery slope that security cameras should be legal... or any of thousands of other evidence collection techniques. In your world no criminal would EVER be brought to justice unless an actual police officer caught them red-handed doing the crime. I'm VERY glad I don't live in your world!

Mr. Flibble wrote:

FalcoColumbarius wrote:

As far as the stop light cameras go: I am in two minds:

• (1) The cameras (two) take the pictures if a motion sensor recognises a vehicle crossing the third line* when the light turns red. If the front wheels have cleared the third line or the vehicle is seen as turning right then the vehicle is presumed legal in it's actions. Fair enough.
  (2) By accepting the stop light cameras we are setting a precedent ~ that slippery slope...

Falco.

*The third line: one stop line and two pedestrian crossing lines.

I am against stop light cameras mainly because they increase traffic accidents from people trying to "emergency-stop" to avoid a ticket! (I can't remember where I read this).

Yes, a good point. I have noticed that some of the amber lights I see have shortened in duration. If one is doing the speed limit on the high street/main drag, which is usually 50KPH; and the typical stopping distance for the average motor vehicle at that velocity is 78 feet (40 odd feet for reaction time & 35 odd feet for the vehicle to stop) then it doesn't leave much of a window for error. Typically I will only do 35KPH as I am not in a big hurry with all those people milling about, but there are people that are in a big hurry and do 50+. Then there is the added element of emergency vehicles with their ear piercing sirens echoing off all the buildings, racing up and down the main street between 45-60KPH that often run the red lights... When I look at the bigger picture I see that lots of things could go wrong. Installing a camera at a light ~ and instilling fear of a ticket...... I can see an accident occurring due to an out of control emergency stop.

Falco.

it's interesting, there are studies on both sides of the issue, all conclusively proving their pre-determined bias... so it is rather hard to say.
If you do however have proof of shortened amber lights, that is a valid legal defence that has been used successfully in the past. (I however have never seen any proof of this in Canada, and I have had no reason to suspect that the amber lights in Calgary are any shorter duration than they were before red light cameras, they do seem quite sufficient to stop safely in.

And while I have witnessed several high severity collisions caused by running a red light, I have yet to witness any caused by people braking unsafely to avoid a red light ticket.

Re: Green1 post; 09:22(PST), 13 April, 2010.

Green1

Allow me, as a painter, to give you a brief lesson in colour toning:

• At one end of the spectrum you will find white. White represents the presence of all colour.
• At the other end of the spectrum you will find black. Black represents the absence of all colour.
• In between is an extremely expansive spectrum of various shades of "grey".

Working only in Black & White is okay on chess boards but one cannot paint a comprehensively accurate picture with just those two colours. By taking my words out of context in order to prove a point ~ no longer makes that point valid and will not hold up in a court of law. In fact, with my very limited experience with the justice system, I can suggest that by doing this you may be held in contempt of court.

The spirit of the hypothetical question I was asking is open for discussion but is not meant to be dissected into small bits then argued out of context. It was designed to compare the logic of photo radar's constitutional regularity with an exaggerated example. Which is why I began the question with: "Let's say I am in court arguing a speeding ticket that I got in my Delica." One; if I am in court then I have a very official alibi, ergo not a suspect ~ and two; the concept of arguing a speeding ticket for a Delica is a little on the absurd side, would you not say?

As far as those two news items that I refer to: You are now arguing with the CBC & BIV, not with me. I will concede that the CBC has been known to sensationalize news stories but they can usually back them up ~ and if they can't then that usually makes the headlines.

Regarding presumption of guilt: Again, I refer to my example of colour tone vs. black & white. If the government were to accuse everyone in Canada of speeding, along with an hefty fine ~ there would likely follow a revolution. The government is not that stupid.

Green1 wrote:

Photo radar automatically assumes that you are the smoking gun. (Falco quote)

So does EVERY investigation in to EVERY crime that has proof pointing your direction, up until you prove their proof wrong in a court room, that is what the courts are for. If you didn't commit the crime, you show that you have better proof than they do, and the judge decides which one he believes.

You've got to be joking.... You even quoted my quote from the Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms; 11(d): "to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. If the crown has proved you guilty "in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal" ~ then you pay the penalty, but that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the individual's constitutional rights being challenged. When a photo radar camera shoots a portrait of your license plate it is submitted to a court as "evidence", not as proof. The moment it is submitted as "proof" then the Constitution has been compromised, habeas corpus has flown out the window and I am opening a banana stand on Parliament Hill.

I like a good argument, Green1, but let's keep it on this side of silly.

Falco.

We are talking about the individual's constitutional rights being challenged. When a photo radar camera shoots a portrait of your license plate it is submitted to a court as "evidence", not as proof

They ARE submitting it as evidence, evidence you are quite welcome to challenge.

You may think I am arguing with the CBC and BIV, but you sir are arguing with the entire court system of British Columbia right up to BC's highest court.

Nowhere does photo radar have any presumption of guilt beyond it showing evidence of a crime, evidence you are quite welcome to contest in court, as with any other evidence collected in any other way.

As in any other method of evidence collection you are welcome to inspect the method of collection, if you think the camera erred you can have it inspected, if you think that a regular radar or laser "gun" used to pull you over erred it is no different. Photo Radar is EXACTLY the same as security cameras and regular laser/radar guns neither of which you seem to have any problem with.

There is no difference between photo radar and ANY other method of evidence collection. It is simply a tool, no different from ANY other tool the police use to collect evidence. It shows a crime has been committed, and it is up to the judge to decide based on the evidence presented whether it was you who committed the crime or not. There is no constitutional difference between this, a security camera, fingerprinting, DNA testing, casts of tire tracks and footprints, or any other evidence collection method. In all of the cases the police accuse whoever they feel is the most likely suspect, and who the evidence points toward, and then the courts take it from there. When you go to court you are welcome to prove that the vehicle in the picture wasn't yours, that you were not the owner of the vehicle at the time the photo was taken, that you were not speeding at the time the photo was taken, or any other excuse you can think of. Just as in ANY other court case.

The BC court system, right up to the highest court in BC have all agreed that no constitutional, or charter of rights issues are being violated by this, and the Supreme Court of Canada obviously didn't think this was likely to be such either, because they love to hear precedent setting cases and refused to hear this one.

So far, there are many people who say all sorts of things because they don't LIKE photo radar, and I never said I liked it either, but not liking something is a VERY long way from it being unconstitutional. And stating that it is, as if it were some form of fact, despite the legal precedents, and simple logic showing otherwise, does nothing to make you look knowledgeable. The first step to defending your rights is to know what they ACTUALLY are, making up the ones you WANT to have may work well in your head, but does nothing to help you when you actually face a problem, you need to know where to direct your energy, in the case of photo-enforcement, the court system is the wrong avenue because they must interpret everything from a legal and constitutional aspect (which IS black and white) If you want to challenge photo radar you must do it through the POLITICAL system, because they are the only ones capable of writing laws and setting policy, and hence the ONLY people who can make something that is currently legal go away. (as far as I can tell, Photo Radar is still technically legal in BC, I believe it is only a policy decision that is preventing it's use, though I could be wrong and the government may have in fact outlawed it, in either case, it was through POLITICAL pressure that this came to be, and NOT legal precedent)
This is important to know for any issue you take seriously, you wouldn't go to the paint store for a loaf of bread, why would you go to the court system to have a law created? You need to know what the judiciary is responsible for, and separately what each of the 3 levels of government are responsible for, before you can know where to address issues you feel are important. going to the wrong legislative branch, or to the wrong choice of judicial or legislative branch for any issue is simply a waste of time and resources.

Lol!!! Here I was all week thinking Green1 had taken some time off from arguing with people but sneaky sneaky he was just doing it in a different sub-forum than usual. Now my world makes sence again.

I'll chip in for that one

Jason