Buddy's question: section 178?
 

Friend got nailed the other day, fail to stop for a yellow, and in being a bit of a twit, the cop also gave him a box 2. According to my friend, the conversation was along the lines of:
"You didn't stop for the yellow"
"I didn't feel I could safely stop in time." (It was raining, his van was loaded with tools and thus quite heavy)
"So you're saying your van isn't safe to be on the road? I could fix that for you right now and have it towed..." :fulloffuck:

Anyway... he got home and looked up the MVA... from what he could find, he said, section 178 (which the ticket was written under) said it had been repealed, and he couldn't find anything else that claimed to replace it. (Sort of along the lines of this thread: http://www.revscene.net/forums/58031...aded-area.html)

So now he's wondering... does he have a valid dispute for a ticket that's written under a now-non-existent section of the Act? And if he DOES succeed in that, can the VI be dismissed as "fruits of the poison vine"?

If a cop gives a vi and the box is checked, you have to do it. Nothing you can do.
Posted via RS Mobile

His excuse is BS anyways... would not hold up in court and is a poor excuse.

Maybe the writing is a little less than clear? Section 128 deals with failing to stop for yellow lights. What will have to be proved is that, at the speed limit, he would have been able to stop safely before he entered the intersection on a yellow light. The only defence is that he could not safely stop before the crosswalk due to his actual position when the yellow came on. Speeding, a heavily loaded vehicle etc should have been considerations for him to alter his driving style if he knows he cannot stop soon enough. His vehicle has to be able to stop in a minimum of 7.62 m at 32 kph to have legal brakes. If he chose to load his truck in such a way that he knows he cannot stop in time, that is not an excuse for running the yellow.

Yellow light
128 (1) When a yellow light alone is exhibited at an intersection by a traffic control signal, following the exhibition of a green light,

(a) the driver of a vehicle approaching the intersection and facing the yellow light must cause it to stop before entering the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no marked crosswalk, before entering the intersection, unless the stop cannot be made in safety"


As far as the VI goes, we have no idea what sort of condition the vehicle was in at the time. Telling a Cop that your brakes don't work in order to escape a yellow light ticket, may have seemed like a good idea at the time? I can see how the Cop decided to get him to have the vehicle checked out to see just how bad it really was.

I mentioned that, but he said the cop's 2s and 7s were distinctly different and this was definitely 178.

Measured on dry pavement?

He never said anything about the brakes, he only said that in his judgement, he didn't feel he could have safely stopped in time.

"his van was loaded with tools and thus quite heavy" This is what caught my eye in the OP.

Re the stopping distance, on dry pavement I believe.

"5.02 (1) Every motor vehicle and every combination of vehicles shall be equipped with service brakes which, when applied, will not affect the direction of travel of the motor vehicle or combination of vehicles, and under all conditions of loading will be adequate, when the motor vehicle or combination of vehicles is travelling at a speed of 30 km/h on a substantially level, dry, smooth, hard surfaced road free of loose material where the grade does not exceed 1%, to s


If it really is a 7 and not a 2 then the VT is not valid unless the Cop moves to change the section at court time before the trial begins....or he could realize the mistake and serve a new one.