You're quoting a government information page which has no relevance to legal matters; the actual Act as it's written takes precedence.
Did you argue that it was unsafe to stop, citing the law? Given that you don't agree that the law even exists, I'd assume not. And if you did, I'd assume the judge likely just took the officer's word that it was safe to stop and you lost because the scales are balanced against you in that situation. But that doesn't change the actual law.
Holy fk man, what is going through your mind right now?
Here's the law you quoted:
Quote:
Yellow traffic lights
53(1) When, at an intersection, a yellow light is shown by a traffic control signal at the same time as or following the showing of a green light, a person driving a vehicle that is approaching the intersection and facing the yellow light shall stop the vehicle before entering
(a) the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or
(b) if there is not any marked crosswalk, the intersection,
unless the stopping of that vehicle cannot be made in safety.
When approaching the "the intersection and facing the yellow light shall stop the vehicle before entering (a) the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or (b) if there is not any marked crosswalk, the intersection."
That's what I got a ticket for.
I went through an intersection right after the light turned yellow.
Whether it was safe or not is completely subjective and not a defense. My claim and sincere belief was it was not safe. That's why I went to court.
I lost. It didn't matter. You have to stop before a yellow. That's the law. The safe part is irrelevant. If you ever get that ticket go fight it on that basis you will lose.
opendoor: here's a thought experiment for you. Do you think if you're in court against a cop who was a dick enough to write you a ticket for running a yellow in icy conditions he's going to tell the judge that, 'well, sliver raises a good point...maybe it wasn't safe to stop'? He's got his pride on the line and he's not going to embarrass himself or admit to wasting the court's time by backing down at all.
Once you have the ticket - which they can clearly write since the law is not vague at all - the cop is never going to acknowledge that you were correct that it wasn't safe to stop. As soon as you get that ticket your goose is cooked.
I finally have clarity on the law lol. Doesn't help anyone that got a ticket for obeying the law.
Since this thread is already off the rails I'll push it farther into the ditch. Why are there count down timers that go to zero but the traffic signal doesn't change. WHAT IS THE POINT. I want to know when the light will go from green to yellow but the clock went to 0 and the light is still green.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to zamler For This Useful Post:
Having watched traffic court back in the day at (I think?) Rocky Mountain Plaza, judges greatly favour police testimony.
I mean for the most part defendants' arguments were "I didn't do it", so not really a surprise.
Most people have a hard time articulating themselves under that kind of pressure and there really isn't anything they can say except, "I didn't do it".
Cops learn Cop Speak so they know how to talk to judges and get the "facts" out.
The Following User Says Thank You to DownInFlames For This Useful Post:
Gotta agree with Sliver here. The cop would likely not ever change his mind in that scenario and you could bring in a dozen peer reviewed papers about the dilemma zone and still lose.
I still maintain, however, that the specific verbiage in the Act is why cops as a whole are not just set up at average intersections on a dry day and nuking every single person who entered while it was yellow.
"Safety" also account for what is physically possible by a human being. In a 80 kph zone on Beddington when you are two car lengths from the stop bar and the light turns yellow, have you committed a crime by entering the entersection on a yellow? Or is it humanly impossible to even recognize the yellow and begin to brake before your car enters?
Last edited by Acey; 01-18-2024 at 02:47 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Acey For This Useful Post:
Holy fk man, what is going through your mind right now?
Here's the law you quoted:
When approaching the "the intersection and facing the yellow light shall stop the vehicle before entering (a) the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or (b) if there is not any marked crosswalk, the intersection."
That's what I got a ticket for.
I went through an intersection right after the light turned yellow.
Whether it was safe or not is completely subjective and not a defense. My claim and sincere belief was it was not safe. That's why I went to court.
I lost. It didn't matter. You have to stop before a yellow. That's the law. The safe part is irrelevant. If you ever get that ticket go fight it on that basis you will lose.
You losing a case doesn't change the law or how it's normally enforced. There are a lot of reasons you may have lost:
1) The judge was incompetent
2) The judge has a strong pro-police bias and would never believe anything you say that contradicts the officer's account.
3) You didn't argue the exception based on the law. Given that you were seemingly unaware of the actual law, that's possible.
But the fact is, in virtually every single light change in every city with similar laws, drivers enter the intersection on a yellow and aren't ticketed because the law allows for exceptions when it's not safe to stop. You got a prick for a cop and a judge who defers to them. But that's the exception.
Maybe silver's judge was also in his Stampede costume and was pissed he had to change for his court appearance too?
__________________ "We are no longer living. We are empty of substance, and our head devours us. Our ancestors were more alive. Nothing separated them from themselves."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Swift For This Useful Post:
Most people have a hard time articulating themselves under that kind of pressure and there really isn't anything they can say except, "I didn't do it".
Cops learn Cop Speak so they know how to talk to judges and get the "facts" out.
Absolutely.
One case the judge got really angry because the defendant called him sir. He yelled "YOU CALL ME YOUR HONOUR!", yelled "GUILTY!" and banged his gavel.
__________________
If you don't pass this sig to ten of your friends, you will become an Oilers fan.
Holy fk man, what is going through your mind right now?
Here's the law you quoted:
When approaching the "the intersection and facing the yellow light shall stop the vehicle before entering (a) the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or (b) if there is not any marked crosswalk, the intersection."
That's what I got a ticket for.
I went through an intersection right after the light turned yellow.
Whether it was safe or not is completely subjective and not a defense. My claim and sincere belief was it was not safe. That's why I went to court.
I lost. It didn't matter. You have to stop before a yellow. That's the law. The safe part is irrelevant. If you ever get that ticket go fight it on that basis you will lose.
I wonder if you could argue the laws of physics take precedence over human laws(since that can't be broken)? You'd then have to show the calculation for your vehicle, stopping distance(at under the speed limit), reaction time etc and could lay out that(in some cases, anyway) the law as written is impossible to follow while obeying the laws of physics. Therefore, the law can't be valid.
You losing a case doesn't change the law or how it's normally enforced. There are a lot of reasons you may have lost:
1) The judge was incompetent
2) The judge has a strong pro-police bias and would never believe anything you say that contradicts the officer's account.
3) You didn't argue the exception based on the law. Given that you were seemingly unaware of the actual law, that's possible.
But the fact is, in virtually every single light change in every city with similar laws, drivers enter the intersection on a yellow and aren't ticketed because the law allows for exceptions when it's not safe to stop. You got a prick for a cop and a judge who defers to them. But that's the exception.
I am aware of the law. You are completely out of your mind on this. Your only opportunity for defense is "it wasn't safe to stop" but you're up against a cop who already wrote you a ticket because "it was safe to stop." So you have a law that says you have to stop before an intersection if the light turns yellow and a cop that says it was safe to do so.
You can't win that and there is no objective criteria you can use to defend yourself.
The layman's versions of the traffic laws on the alberta.ca are useless and often entirely incorrect when you read the actual law, Alta Reg 304/2002, so if we can all agree moving forward to stop quoting/relying on them for the basis of an argument, that would be swell.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Typical dumb take.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
opendoor: here's a thought experiment for you. Do you think if you're in court against a cop who was a dick enough to write you a ticket for running a yellow in icy conditions he's going to tell the judge that, 'well, sliver raises a good point...maybe it wasn't safe to stop'? He's got his pride on the line and he's not going to embarrass himself or admit to wasting the court's time by backing down at all.
Once you have the ticket - which they can clearly write since the law is not vague at all - the cop is never going to acknowledge that you were correct that it wasn't safe to stop. As soon as you get that ticket your goose is cooked.
Sure, but an officer being a jerk and a judge basically ignoring your side doesn't change the law.
Here's a thought experiment for you. If you produced dashcam footage that conclusively proved that it would have been unsafe to stop (i.e. the light turned yellow half a second before you entered the intersection) and had a reasonable judge, do you think you still would have been fined? Based on the way you're talking, I'd assume you think you would still have been fined because you're saying the law is quite clear and states that you're breaking the law 100% of the time if you enter on a yellow. I think the opposite, because the law clearly allows exceptions to that rule in those cases.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Why are there count down timers that go to zero but the traffic signal doesn't change. WHAT IS THE POINT. I want to know when the light will go from green to yellow but the clock went to 0 and the light is still green.
Could be any of:
- synchronization with adjacent intersections
- a buffer has been built in at certain intersections where people are consistently disregarding pedestrian timers
- at certain times of day and in certain scenarios, the controller will give additional green time to certain movements to optimize flow
The Following User Says Thank You to Acey For This Useful Post:
The layman's versions of the traffic laws on the alberta.ca are useless and often entirely incorrect when you read the actual law, Alta Reg 304/2002, so if we can all agree moving forward to stop quoting/relying on them for the basis of an argument, that would be swell.
Yeah we fking are. I quoted opendoor's law. It says what I've been saying.
It's illegal to enter an intersection if the light is yellow.
Crystal clear.
If you can't safely stop it doesn't matter one iota because the cop can just say it was safe. You have no defense at that point. Nothing. Your word against his (you lose already) and on top of that, you entered an intersection on a yellow, which is illegal.
There's no 10', 20', 30, or one second, two seconds or anything objective you can lean on to make a case it wasn't safe. That safe/unsafe wording is to empower the state to ticket you; not to save you if they want to ticket you lol. That wording allows us to operate and live with the obvious physical impossibility of stopping 1mm before an intersection while doing 80, but if a cop feels like ticketing you he can and you cannot defend yourself. It's indefensible.
