Are you saying the police respondents were lying about their quotas?

And where did I say "ALL cops in BC have quotas"?

Scroll down a little more to page 81

Those respondents sure can come up with a pretty specific fabrication :whistle:

considering you said you turned right, im going to go ahead and say you DID run a red light. perhaps you slowing down to 1% you think you're obeying the law, but in reality you werent. Now im not here attacking you..as to be quite honest, i run a red light making right turns about..90% of the time lol and you did also say you were going 60 max..which in turn is speeding. So while you may not like it...it seems like the ticket was a valid one.

Now if it was me, i would challenge it. Just so for the fact that you can talk to the cop , if you know you were wrong, about reducing the fine , etc. or you can hope he doesnt show and move on lol

as far as I know the light was green while I turned right, anyways just going to try to dispute this and see what happens.

"as far as I know" = guilty conviction in JP's eyes...

Let's settle the "quota" thing right now. If you are doing designated duties (traffic, drugs, B&E etc) you are expected to demonstrate that you are doing your job. A Drug Member who never seized any drugs or arrested anyone would be asked what they had been doing? Same with a Traffic Member. No quotas, but you had to demonstrate why you were not writing tickets that your partners were. If you could answer that question reasonably...ie...involved in a detailed investigation, in court, away on training etc, that would be a reasonable answer.

The role of Traffic enforcement is to alter illegal driving behaviour by selective enforcement of traffic laws. Writing tickets is one way. Stopping offending drivers/riders and selective applying enforcement was encouraged. Selective enforcement also includes NOT writing someone for every law they broke, but giving written or verbal warnings also were appropriate. I was ordered to have certain percentages of the tickets I wrote for specific offenses (eg seatbelt tickets) but never told I couldn't come back unless I had written a specified total of tickets. I was ordered to charge a specified minimum number of impaired drivers a year but that was the only exception.

OP cannot confidently say how fast he was going or what colour the light was.. I am not here to grill the OP, but it's your vague version of events while driving vs the officer's (whose job it is as a professional witness mind you). But to be fair, most drivers are so complacent when driving that we usually don't really pay that much attention to the exact speed we are traveling and what light patterns are etc...

Not until after they get caught.............:devil:

Well I have no way of proving it now as I have no dashcam but I don't understand his accusations as initially he said I was going 100 when I DEFINITELY was not going anywhere near that speed. His attitude was pretty shitty throughout too, and you could see a look of disappointment when I didn't fail the breathalyzer. Then he goes back to his car and i have to wait for him to figure out what to do next which was write me that red light ticket
Posted via RS Mobile

I think their point is, if you're going to go to court with it, don't waffle on your "evidence". "I think it might have been green" will get you nowhere... "The light was definitely green when I made the right turn" will be far more useful.

Get a dashcam OP, that's the best advice I can give. A $50 G1W could have saved you from a $167 ticket if you indeed were following the law.

That being said, the average person doesn't come to a "full stop" before the line (as set out in the MVA) before making a right turn on a red, more so if it is 3AM and the roads are completely empty. It's likely you did what everyone else does; slow down to about 5 km/h and make the turn. Which is why you received the ticket.

And as for the whole "quota" thing, the average cop does not have a quota. What they DO have (my apologies for speaking on behalf of the LEOs here) is a standard of performance like literally every single other job. In a retail store, if Joe, Steve, and John sold 20 shirts each, and you only sold 5... your Supervisor would likely talk to you and you better have a good explanation for why. It's the same deal with working in law enforcement; while there are no real "quotas" to speak of, you do have to keep up with a standard set by your peers.

:duh:

A lot of ppl are not aware of the fact that technically you have to stop at a red light before you make your right hand turn.

Coming to a complete stop is more of a formality than anything.

In most cases, the point at which you come to a stop before the line doesn't permit you to safely see to the left prior to entering the intersection to make your turn. Drivers almost always have to pull forward into the crosswalk before verifying that it is in fact safe to proceed on the turn.

Performing the same act at a <5kph is no more dangerous than coming to a stop, then proceeding into the crosswalk at the same speed.

There's no guarantee that the driver who comes to a complete stop then proceeds into the intersection is doing any better of a job at looking to see if it's safe to turn than one who crosses the line at a low rate of speed.

(And when I say low rate of speed, I'm talking idling in "Drive" with the foot off the brake speed, not blasting through at 15kph).

Actually a complete cessation of forward movement is a"formality" required by law. I agree with your description of many intersections. After you have stopped as required you then move slowly into the intersection and if it is clear then you continue. If you have 2 options to dealing with a blind intersection and what is the safest way to enter it, what would you say was safer:

1). Stop at the required legal stop position and then inch carefully into the intersection. At this speed you would be able to stop your vehicle almost instantly for oncoming traffic.

2). Slow down and continue into the intersection, planning to stop for oncoming traffic that you might hit. This faster speed would mean you would cover more distance as you slowed, than someone who had stopped and was only beginning to move.

This is my suggestion, using your "road safety through education". and it is what I teach my students. I demo it by having them walk thru these scenarios in class. All pick #1 option.

Intersections have a variety of differences in visibility, sightlines, etc...

If visibility allows for a driver approaching a red light or stop sign to adequately see that there are no vehicles approaching from the left, then is the full stop prior to entering the intersection really that necessary from a safety perspective?

========

While we're on the topic, here's another traffic law that makes no sense:

LEFT turns on red onto a one-way street are permitted in BC. But not if the road you're turning onto is one half of a divided highway such as this turn here: http://goo.gl/maps/5IRMG

Technically the exact same turn, but legally prohibited.

If we adopted the intersection signs that they use in New Zealand, it would make traffic flow a lot better. Very few stop signs at all...intersections either have "Give Way" (ie Yield) signs on all corners or they have roundabouts. Traffic only stops if it has to...by yielding to oncoming traffic or to vehicles already in the roundabout. It was fun driving there for 6 weeks. They do many things differently there....include driving on the left side of the road.:concentrate:

^see, many stop signs can safely be changed to/treated as yield signs.

We're too busy sticking it in D for dumb and texting.

Yes. You still need to be weary of pedestrian traffic. 99.9% of the people failing to stop completely at stop signs or red lights are not looking to their right for pedestrians about to step off onto the road, but to the left for on-coming traffic. And they start the head-cranked-to-the-left looking well before they get close enough to properly assess the pedestrian situation.
Posted via RS Mobile

Except with the general caliber of Vancouver/Lower Mainland drivers, this would never work. You're a (ex?) traffic officer and I'm sure you've seen many times the idiocy and complete lack of common sense that takes place at a simple and average 4-way stop. I do agree, the flow of traffic in general would be smoother... but a LOT more education needs to be put in place before we change the system around here.

Or they do what they do now, come to a full stop while looking left, proceed forward and to the right while still looking left and never looking right until they're part way into the turn.

I don't see much difference between the two scenarios.

Alberta uses the yield sign liberally. I've found traffic flow much smoother in rural areas and service roads with yields in place of stop signs. Any cross walk areas or entering on to a highway are still light or stop sign controlled, but there are many inner city areas where a rolling stop is much more appropriate.

I've noticed it in places where traffic is forced to have every car stop at the sign to enter, it get severely bottled necked. That traffic gap that could have had a dozen cars enter in without stopping against a yield now only has 3-4 cars moving into a gap because every car is required to come to a full and complete stop (if they actually did that is).

Mayhaps I should take a visit to New Zealand, for "research purposes" of course. :whistle:

Grew up there and wish I could move back there. I'm too old...and besides, too many people there know what I was really like growing up. You would love it there.