EVIDENCE
WHAT IS EVIDENCE?
Evidence is information you provide the Court to prove your case. There are different kinds of evidence, the most common are:
Oral testimony
A person comes to Court and answers questions in Court.
Documentary evidence
These records include copies of documents, contracts, cheques, invoices, letters, receipts, repair estimates, photographs or videos, printouts of any e-mails or other electronic messages, copies of transcripts of any voicemail messages, or any other materials that relate to the action. If you choose to display text messages or e-mails on your personal device, such as a cell phone, the Court may keep the device until the end of the appeal period as an exhibit.
Electronic evidence
Includes materials not in paper, such as flash drives, videos or recordings.
Requests for special requirements such as hearing assistance, voice amplifiers, television or video equipment must be made on the Courtroom Audiovisual Request Form at least 30 days prior to the trial. You should contact the Alberta Court of Justice Office in advance to confirm procedures.
1. The way the cop handled things was ridiculous for a public servant (or anybody, for that matter). It was just too invasive with the phone call (to the wrong person, no less), then speeding on icy roads to pull a guy over (last place I want to be on crappy roads is stopped on the side) for not(?) speeding.
2. It's too vague/subjective. JonDuke wasn't speeding. If he was going too fast then let's make a rule that speed limits change when there is ice on the roads or something and have signage to reflect that. I don't want it to be up to some grumpy power-tripping cop's judgement. We need to work to eliminate vague rules to give cops fewer opportunities to go around startling some poor woman in bed and then speeding on bad roads to nab a guy for not speeding.
We all know winter tires aren't magic. They're just better than the alternatives.
Who says JonDuke wasn't driving in a more cautious way due to the roads? I usually go over the speed limit. Yesterday I drove around the city about 100kms. Most was under the speed limit, tbh, but probably 30% of the time was the speed limit for sure. That's me being cautious, but my wife could get a phone call and I could get pulled over for that? And lectured? Fk that.
I know that this was 4/5 pages ago, but it made me realise something. My wife would be both not happy getting that 5:30 wake-up call, and also so thrilled.
"Your driving was so bad, the police actually thought that they better call me and let me know!" I would never hear the end of that! (and vice-versa if I ever got that call about her driving!)
The Following User Says Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
If you're approaching an icy intersection like many of us have this week and the choice is to enter through a yellow or slam on the brakes and risk a crash behind you, there is certainly a grey area that is open to interpretation. A good driver needs to make these decisions based on the conditions and what is going on around them.
It doesn't give a person a carte blanche to go around and abuse yellow lights, but just like the OP driving too fast for the conditions, it all needs to be assessed by the driver at that given time. Any decent cop or judge is going to take things like this into account.
This is exactly what happened to me almost 5 years ago. I was driving on a Sunday morning with my wife and 6 month old in a boring van. This was in Okotoks and the town cops turned behind me just outside of town. I was actually driving a bit under the speed limit because it was icy. I got to the intersection that I have literally driven through 1000 times. The intersection was very quiet, but a person spun out as they were making a turn, so I was watching their vehicle to see if I needed to stop. As I was watching, I saw the light turn yellow, but I was passed the point of being able to stop safely in my mind and it was icy. I slowly go through the intersection and the blue and red lights go on behind me. My wife was as confused as I was as the red light had not changed while we were in the intersection. Cop comes out, gives me “failure to stop at yellow” ticket and away he goes. Didn’t even let me explain about the conditions, etc. I do some research and figure I’m a bit hooped, but decided to fight it anyways. Of course, on the court date I got sent out of town for an urgent work issue, so my wife with an infant goes to fight it for me. Should be a slam dunk right? Nope, ticket stuck.
The Following User Says Thank You to bagofpucks For This Useful Post:
You are arguing about evidence. The law as written has two parts: 1. Do not enter on yellow, 2. unless unsafe. The defence to the first part is built into the law in the second part. The cop says it was safe to stop. That is the full evidence against you and they made out the case. The problem is that it puts the onus on the driver to prove that it was unsafe to stop. Was it Fuzz that proposed what needed to be proven to make out the successful defence above? It is accurate. Unfortunately, you don't have the evidence; location at the time it turned yellow, weight of vehicle, slipperiness of the road, actual speed, etc. If you had this evidence, you could have made out an objective defence and been successful. As it is, you didn't have it and you lost. That is how it is supposed to work.
This is kinda how I won my case. The roads were so bad, everyone in town knew it. The police, the judge, everyone.
I think the judge understood and believed me when I told him I couldn’t have possibly stopped.
Well, I guess I didn’t actually win the case, I just got the cost halved. So there’s that.
Okay, but that's unfightable/unwinnable because we're back to trusting a cop's judgement over my judgement.
The rule is crystal clear. The judge explained it to me. "Yellow means stop. Did you proceed through the intersection even though the light was yellow?" "Yes, but it was unsafe to stop because of the ice." "Guilty. It is illegal to enter an intersection on a yellow and that cop over there says it was safe."
Boom. Done. Here's my $300 or whatever it was.
Perhaps you've already answered this in the last hundred posts I haven't read yet, but what was the intersection and your direction of travel? Was there an advanced flashing yellow warning lights? Pedestrian countdown timer (I know this one is inconsistent)?
If you use the pedestrian count down timer and coast into intersections that you would have gone through on yellow because it would have been unsafe to stop if you hadn’t slowed down you are a bad driver reducing the traffic capacity of roads. We have long yellow and dual red phases. Adding additional coasting time into the last few seconds of a pedestrian countdown adds layers that are not required.
If you use the pedestrian count down timer and coast into intersections that you would have gone through on yellow because it would have been unsafe to stop if you hadn’t slowed down you are a bad driver reducing the traffic capacity of roads. We have long yellow and dual red phases. Adding additional coasting time into the last few seconds of a pedestrian countdown adds layers that are not required.
Disagree, countdowns can be used very effectively most of the time. They give you an opportunity to judge whether you should:
1. speed up a little bit to put you past the dilemma zone and know you're certain to get through on green
or
2. coast because you know it's impossible that you'll make the intersection by 0, so why waste gas and brakes on a [probably] futile endeavour?
Of course the problem comes on scenario 3 where the light stays green, and now you're back on the gas as you enter the dilemma zone. It would be nice if there was some standard of say minimum 5 seconds more green after 0 if 0 doesn't mean yellow. I think it's pretty rare that it's like 2-3 more seconds, but I feel like that's happened to me a few times and is very annoying.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
