Attention Winnipeg Drivers

We are a dedicated group of citizen activists who are working towards exposing and solving Winnipeg’s unsafe traffic engineering and subsequent unfair enforcement tactics.  Our goals are too see proper and safe traffic engineering practices and to have enforcement used fairly for the real violators.  Through many of the changes we are advocating for, there will be safer streets not just for drivers, but for all road users including pedestrians and cyclists.

New:

WiseUpWinnipeg has exposed the issue of improper signing in Manitoba construction zones.  All tickets issued from improperly signed construction zones must be dismissed.  Click here to see press release and here to see provincial signing standards that are not being followed.

CBC recently covered the issue of speed limit sign removal currently taking place.  Click here to see the news piece or read our description of the problems.

Wise Up Winnipeg has recently been mentioned on the new W5 piece about unfair traffic tickets.  Click here to see a full explanation of the signing problems found at McPhillips and Inkster (the intersection used by W5)

Wise Up Winnipeg releases summary of speed limit setting issues on Grant Ave.

http://wiseupwinnipeg.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/20-November-2012-Release-Inadequate-Speed-Limit-On-Grant.pdf

Wise Up Winnipeg releases report on school zone signing throughout Winnipeg.  Visit:

http://wiseupwinnipeg.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Winnipeg-School-Area-Signing-Study.pdf

The City of Winnipeg is engaged in a deliberate and dangerous campaign to induce photo-enforcement violations and siphon your hard earned $$$

WiseUpWinnipeg has uncovered devious and predatory tactics intended to reduce your driving awareness and increase violations. It’s supposed to be about SAFETY! The City of Winnipeg photo enforcement program is required by provincial Conditions of Authority to reduce collisions and injuries by deterring red light running and excessive speeding. But….contrary to City of Winnipeg claims of achieving that primary goal, MPIC data reveals that photo-enforcement has dramatically INCREASED collisions.

Adjusting amber lights “would ruin the photo-enforcement program.”
-WPS Traffic Sgt. Jon Butcher. Mr. Butcher is now VP of ACS Canada.

It’s time to end this abuse of power! It’s time to ACT! WiseUpWinnipeg is Taking it to the Streets!

What are we advocating for?
Simply this…make amber light times adequate for the intersection. Sign roads properly and stop enforcement-targeting of stretches that are not. Maintain the photo-enforcement program for true red light runners and speeders.

What is our mission?
To publicly expose the deception within the photo enforcement program and to draw attention to Winnipeg’s traffic infrastructure inadequacies (including amber times, speed limits and signage) that are being deliberately exploited by the program to generate maximum “violations” from otherwise safe driving behaviours.

Join us by standing up and telling our elected officials that we will no longer tolerate the deception and abuse! Demand that this illicit program be suspended immediately and that legitimate safety improvements be implemented!

Your voice can be heard, your actions will make a difference.

Links To Our Outside Documents:

PPT Presentation on Poor Infrastructure that Enables Abusive Enforcement

Full PPT Presentation on Infrastructure Problems

 

Short Story About Police Abusing Missing Signs

City Removing Speed Limit Signing

Winnipeg’s Worst Signed School Zone

Removal of Camera Warning Signs

Effects of Large Vehicles on Speed Sign Visibility

 

 

 

424 Responses to “Welcome to WiseUpWinnipeg”

  1. Timmipeg says:

    I also just got a ticket regarding the 7010 location (Sterling Lyon E of McCreary). Drove by there tonight and of course, nothing there now. It says it happened at 1245 on a Sunday afternoon (Oct 26). I recall no workers there for sure! I am careful to look for these sorts of things, have received one speeding ticket my entire life (29 years ago!!), have full merit points, and am pretty ticked off!

    I plan on pleading not guilty and letting things grind along.

    • Timmipeg says:

      Oh one other thing….the printed info about me and my car on the ticket is incorrect. The photo is of one car and the info beside is a car I owned more than 10 years ago, no match whatsoever. So, the printed info doesn’t match the car in the photo.

    • Acm16 says:

      I got a similar ticket nov 1 but in location 7006 sb kenaston at lowson. Does anyone know if the signs were still posted? I think that had already been removed but i have no proof of this. I think the law that says they assume the signs are present is absolute hogwash. Since when do assumptions stand in a court of law?! They should have proof. The radar photos should be required to have the speed limit signs inside the photo frame. I will please not guilty. I was driving 73 in a 60.

      • Chris Sweryda says:

        It’s impossible to say about the signs. Construction zones come and go so fast that we don’t keep track of them. That’s part of the advantage for them is that the HTA presumes that signing was proper and it’s impossible for you to prove it wasn’t when you don’t get the ticket until 2 weeks later and especially when the zone doesn’t even exist anymore.

        • Beans58 says:

          After getting a photo radar ticket in the mail for location 7006 (SB Kenaston S. of Lowson Cres.) I went online to find details on the signage requirements to comply with Regulation 145/2014 related to the DCZ changes to the Highways Traffic Act (HTA). This link will take you to a page with a further link to a large document titled “Work Zone Traffic Control Manual”. This is the manual to be used by those responsible for managing traffic through the various work site conditions that may exist on provincial highways, including the recently enacted “Designated Construction Zones” amendments. Quoted from page 5: “A written record detailing the location, time of installation and time of removal of all regulatory speed reductions must be maintained by the traffic authority/contractor.”

          Also, a Memo was issued by City of Winnipeg Traffic Management Branch on July 7, 2014 to all “Users of the Manual of Temporary Traffic Control in Work Areas on City Streets”. Of note, for Any DCZ where the speed is being reduced, “The City of Winnipeg Traffic Services Branch is responsible for erecting/placing all associated DCZ signs in accordance with the regulation, as well as any speed limit signs.”

          My ticket says my offence relates to section 95(1)(b.1) of the Highways Traffic Act which says, “no person shall drive a vehicle at a rate of speed greater than (b.1) the maximum permitted speed at a place in a designated construction zone that is identified as required by subsection 77.1(2).”

          And then section 77.1(2) says:
          Required signage for designated construction zones

          77.1(2) In accordance with the regulations, a designated construction zone must be identified by traffic control devices placed or erected at its beginning and end that

          (a) identify the portion or length of highway as a designated construction zone; and

          (b) identify the designated construction zone’s beginning and end.

          “The regulations” then rely on the Work Zone Traffic Control Manual for the actual proper signage requirements. The City of Winnipeg guide, I would think, must also follow the same format. I called the Manitoba Traffic Engineering Branch at 204.945.3781 and was directed to a gentleman in authority of construction zone signage. (Refer to the new DCZ signage example on Page 6 and TMP16 on page 153 of the ammended Work Zone Traffic Control noted above) He told me that the sign spacing leaving the construction area should comply with the spacings noted on TMP16 and that the length of the taper leaving is often quite short and of no real safety concern. Therefore, there should have been a return to the normal 80 km/h less than 100m south of the newly constructed road that enters from the west. Also, the “Construction Ends” sign should be 100m after the 80 km/h sign. In my case, I have determined that my car was about 200m past the end of the actual work area when photographed going 74km/h.

          I went back and checked the signage in both southbound and northbound directions. The return to 80 km/h northbound was just north of the railway crossing by IKEA, barely 50 m north of the end of actual construction. According to MIT Policy/Standard 900-B-1, “Devices (signs, barricades, etc) must be applied in a uniform and consistent manner. This uniformity allows motorists to anticipate traffic control situations similar to those previously experienced, and helps to ensure they respond properly.” The signage by the City of Winnipeg in this instance (and others I’m sure) clearly fall terribly short of this goal.

          Instead of paying due care to actual safety hazards, motorists now have to spend a lot of effort and attention to the signage to ensure they do not fall into a speed trap. This goes counter to the intent of a DCZ.

          • Beans58 says:

            I forgot to mention that southbound, the Construction Ends sign and the return to 80 km/h sign were mounted on the same pole just before Commerce Drive. That is 400m beyond the end of the actual construction.

            My “offence” occurred October 9, I got the ticket in the mail October 20 and went out to photograph the area a few days later. The photo radar van was on site, hiding behind construction equipment, parked right beside a light pole with a “no stopping” sign on it. I asked the operator where site 7006 was exactly. He said he couldn’t talk to me and gave me a card of a patrol sergeant that I could contact. I spoke to the sergeant a few days later. I asked him if I could get a copy of the un-cropped photo. He told me the photo was not cropped. I find that very hard to believe.

            How does one go about getting the evidence from the police to prepare a proper defence in traffic court?

  2. disgruntled says:

    My wife just received her first ticket, maybe ever, 75 in a 60 designated construction zone, or so it says. Location 7010 …, EB Sterling Lyon Pkwy East of Mcreary Rd at a distance of 82 M or 270 ft. The information seems very vague. From the photo it looks very close to Keneston, and there is no sign of construction. Drove by there today and there is definitely no construction left at that particular location. Without any additional evidence why on earth would we plead guilty. My guess is she had passed through the construction and was already driving away.

    Is there a way to find out and obtain any additional info recorded. i.e. are there additional photos, readings that may be brought up in court. Is there any proof that the speed limit signs were actually in place?

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Make sure to plead not guilty however, it’s impossible to prove the signing situation. We have caught them many times using inadequate signing, but the problem is that the HTA says that all required signing is assumed to be present. The onus is on you to prove signing wasn’t there, not them to prove it was and that’s impossible to do when your getting the ticket two weeks later and the zone doesn’t even exist anymore.

      • TJC says:

        I also received a ticket at that location – EB Sterling Lyon Pkwy East of Mcreary Rd. I knew it was a construction zone and was mindful of the reduced speed limit; I am assuming I sped up to the regular speed limit after I passed the construction. The day after I received the ticket in the mail I went back and took a video of the construction zone which was still there. There does appear to be discrepancies in the signage – in my video the sign indicating that the speed limit returned to 80km was a significant distance from the next set of lights and in my photo radar ticket my vehicle is very near the lights leading me to believe I was out of the designated construction zone when the photo was taken. Does anyone know if this video has any merit? Obviously one downfall is that it was not taken the same day that I received the ticket.

    • Wow19 says:

      Hi, I just received the same ticket, 75 in a 60 designated construction zone, location 7010. Distance 123 M. This is my 1st photo radar ticket ever. Mine was on a Sunday afternoon oct 26. My picture looks like the contruction signs were pushed to the side for the weekend! And my picture shows me behind someone. WOW

      • Chris Sweryda says:

        As we always say, make sure to plead not guilty.

      • brucered says:

        I don’t see any signs in my pic and know the actual posted limit in that area (during non-construction) is 80.

        Does anyone have any pics of the signage for that w/end or know what the construction ended in that zone?

        Were there signs clearly posted, positioned in advance and where it ended?

    • brucered says:

      I got the same ticket. EB Stirling Lyon Pkwy East of McRreary Rd – Speed 78km, Range 72m, Location 7010.

      I believe I was OUT of the zone, Sunday Afternoon, Guy was sitting in his Blk SUV and got me when I had left the zone but issues the ticked.

      Not Guilty is what I will be pleading. Checked on signage and it’s all down now, no more construction.

  3. tombsy says:

    Hi, I received a photo ticket ($440) EB Sterling Lyon East of McCreary. It was in a construction zone. Well the whole area seems to be a construction zone. The location given is quite vague. Do the cameras have GPS coordinates on them? Without knowing the exact location of the camera, it is tough for me to fight the ticket. Sterling Lyon goes SE and E. If the ticket was where I was going on the SE section of the road, would this be grounds for dismissal?

  4. jack says:

    Just received a default conviction notice in the e-mail. I mailed in my ticket a month and a half ago pleading not guilty. I also attached a hand written letter requesting a night court date, now I get a conviction letter in the mail and they’ve added another $50 to my fine! I called the courts and they say they never received the letter……..seriously, letters get delivered, someone has to have lost it on their end. Anyone else had this issue, or is this just another stretch of bad luck? I am so pissed off about this I can hardly speak, first I get a bogus ticket and now they’re trying to get another $50 out of me!

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      All you have to do is fill out the default conviction notice stating that as the reason you didn’t respond. You’ll get your court date. They’ll keep the $50 tacked on until the end. If you win which includes the ticket being dropped by the crown when the operator doesn’t show, the whole thing will be gone including the extra $50. If you lose the case, after asking for the reduction the judge will ask about the default conviction. That’s when you repeat exactly what you just said here and it’ll be waved. I’ve never seen it not happen. They can’t prove anything was sent or not sent because they don’t use registered mail. This is also the same scenario that happens if someone never got the original ticket and the default conviction is the first notice they are getting. I’ve also seen many people who simply ignored the ticket use that same argument and the court has to accept it. If they don’t like it, they can break down and pay for registered mail or actually use real enforcement that gives you the ticket at the time of the so called offence. Also, going forward, never be intimidated into pleading guilty with an explanation from not guilty.

    • Citizen33 says:

      Just got my ticket for going 64 at an alleged 50 km/h zone via mail. You can’t even make out my car’s license plate in the photo. Is that grounds for an invalid ticket? This is such a cash grab ugh.

      • PaulaV says:

        Just received a $731.50 ticket from October 23 in the mail today. Said I was driving 86km/h in a 60 zone on EB Sterling Lyon Pkwy East of McCreary Rd. They have me driving out of the construction zone with the radar set at 96 m. How is this even allowed ???

  5. Elizabeth says:

    Thank you for the information on the positions of the various Mayoral candidates! Appreciate your hard work and long term dedication to ending this abusive and tyrannical display of blatant corruption and greed in our city! Activists are my favorite people – and so under appreciated! Keep fightin the good fight! Namaste.

  6. RebelSeda says:

    I just want to say FIGHT EVERY SINGLE RADAR TICKET YOU GET. I got one last year at that Grant location. I sent in the form for my court date, which was over a year after my ticket was issued. I couldn’t afford to take time off work, but I had ‘Radar Rodney’ (google him) fight my ticket for me. He got my ticket charge cut in half. His fee is 50% of what he saves you. If he can’t save you anything, he doesn’t charge you. So, I got a lesser charge, got to wait an entire year to pay it, and cost them money for this ridiculous predatory practice that they have going on.

    If I get another, I may fight it myself if I can take the time off work. But yeah, for anyone wondering if they have the nerve to fight one, seriously, talk to Rodney. At the very least, you get to defer your payment until your court date (which is probably a year). At best, you’ll pay less or nothing. Seriously, if you don’t stand up to these people, then it’s just going to keep going on. Show them the consequences of poor signage, short yellows, and speed limits below the 80th percentile – it needs to cost THEM, not you.

  7. scubacruiser says:

    I received a ticket last week for $548, allegedly doing 79 in a 60 designated construction zone on Sept 12th. The ticket shows a photo of the back of my car cropped very closely to the sides of the car. I can not see if there were other cars beside me, but it looks like there are cars in front. The ticket indicates 86m to the target. My research indicates a beam width of 5°. So at 86m, there is a 7.5m wide area at the end of the beam. How can they say in a cropped photo that it’s my car they read with a 7.5m wide beam?

    I’ve scoured the ticket and the only location information is a 4 digit code. There is nothing indicating where this is. And nothing in the photo to indicate where it is, or if it is even in a construction zone.

    I worked construction for 9 years, and was even hit by a car speeding through too close to the workers. So I am VERY aware of speed limit signs within construction zones. In fact, I’ve noticed many construction sites where the speed limit signs were incorrectly laid out. That, and the fact that I was doing 79 tells me that I was not within the construction zone signs where it says reduce to 60. The photo radar vehicle may have targeted me before or after the construction zone signs, hence my speed. I’ve seen them parked just before the construction ends signs targeting cars that are clearly speeding up at the end of the zone.

    Also, I have only received 2 speeding tickets in my 28 year driving career. The last one was in 1997. So my driving record is nearly impeccable. Clearly I have no reason to ignore speed limits in construction zones where they are clearly and properly marked.

    I am pleading not guilty on this one because of the lack of location information, the poor signing practices being implemented in construction zones, the photo being cropped significantly, the 86m distance noted on the ticket, and my clean driving record.

    • scubacruiser says:

      Okay, I found the location info. It says SB Kenaston south of Lowson Cr.

      I’m still fighting this for the other reasons listed above.

      • jagr says:

        Hi there.. I received a ticket at same location for $521 allegedly doing 78 in 60 zone..I went there couple of days ago to investigate..I found there are only 2 signs showing 60 ..one is south of mcgillivary and the other is North of Lawson cr..there are 2 signs with the regular posted limit of 80 between lindenwood Dr and lowson cr..

        • nicoleyki says:

          i driven there today and there are two signs of 60kph going southbound of kenaston however, going NB there was so signage or anything…. so I’m not sure if they took that down and that side of the street is down. can anyone confirm?

          • Chris Sweryda says:

            The southbound is their regular trap and the one we’ve been shutting down a few times by holding signs. The northbound was hit a miss and appeared to only go up for a day or two at a time; almost like when they had an extra photo radar unit available. There are never any workers around either way.

            • nicoleyki says:

              well no signage to me means regular speed limit applies. if they enforce one side they should enforce the other which they aren’t. so if i get a ticket i will be fighting it.

            • marshallgirl says:

              I received a photo ticket at the same spot, southbound Kenaston, south of Lowson Crescent, on Sept. 9th. I’m sure, and my passenger is sure, that there were no 60 km signs posted. I’m very aware of my speed when I see anything orange on a highway and also there were no workers on the road. The next time I was on Kenaston, about a week later, there were 60 km signs posted IN the construction area and they were noticeable. Is there any way we can band together and be a united front to fight this?
              Thank you.

              • shaunm says:

                I just got a ticket at the same location and will be fighting it.
                Does anyone have pictures available showing the lack of signage?
                I got my ticket on a Saturday. Should the double fines rule still apply even if there were no workers present?
                Thanks

              • mary says:

                I got a ticket on oct 5, Sunday. Of all days, the same spot. The ticket was$391.25. I am going to fight it.

        • noway says:

          I just received a ticket for $391.25 for allegedly going 73 in a 60 zone location SB Kenaston south of Lowson Cr. on October 7th. Seems interesting that there are all of a sudden a bunch of tickets issued with this designation. I am pretty aware of construction and school zones and use my cruise control through those areas to avoid tickets. I was trying to be very aware of the construction zones so this really sucks and I don’t believe that this is accurate. I will be pleading not gulity. According to the site http://cms00asa1.winnipeg.ca/mapxtreme/servlet/cismap the construction is on Sterling Lyon Parkway just north of Lowson crescent nothing showing for Kenaston. I don’t really recall where the construction was exactly but remember Kenaston as pretty easy going. If signage is as you say then it is obviously really confusing if it is 60 north of Lowson and 60 south of McGillvary but 80 k between Lindenwood Dr and Lowson Cr. My photo shows the cars ahead of mine coming up to a curve so that would put them on approach to Lindenwood Drive. Right in that 80 K zone. Hmm very interesting. None of this makes sense since going SB you are driving away from the construction at Sterling Parkway and until reaching McGillvary haven’t reached the next construction zone which would be preparation for the Waverly West overpass maybe? Not liking this at all.

      • LMLandy says:

        Please let me know where you found the location code information. We recently received a ticket for doing 73 km in a construction zone. We know approximately where we were at the time of the ticket and believe that the construction had ended and all signage had been removed from that area. However, we need to know where exactly the location code is indicating to know for certain. I’ve been unable to find the location info anywher online.

    • stevens.pascaline says:

      I just got a ticket in the mail for going 85 in a 60 zone on Sept 15 on Kenaston near Lowson cr too. I am stunned to see how many people are in the same situation as me. I definitely don’t remember seeing signage. My fine is $705!!
      I want to fight this. I drive down Kenaston very often and I know it’s a bad spot for radar so I am always very careful and use mt cruise control to be safe.
      I would be willing to get together with all of you and fight this.
      stevens.pascaline@gmail.com

  8. minaibrahim says:

    This was sent to the mayor of Winnipeg:

    Referring URL: unknown
    Subject: Web – Comment

    Message:
    Dear Mr. Mayor,

    I was recently in your city attending my cousin’s wedding. Shortly after my return to Toronto I received a letter in the mail from the car rental company that included a photo-radar traffic ticket. The infraction was speeding at 63 km/h in a 50 km/h zone.

    Such an offence here in Ontario would carry a penalty of around $50, but this ticket is $221! I cannot fight this ticket since that would have to take place in Winnipeg.

    I will not return to Winnipeg and will be recommending to everyone I know not to visit, hold events in, or even transit through Winnipeg until this absolute scam of a system called photo-radar is removed from your city streets.

    I have already cancelled an upcoming business visit to the city and have made arrangements to conduct our business with the supplier in Winnipeg via telephone conference. Further business meetings involving myself and any of my colleagues will be conducted in the same manner until photo-radar is removed from Winnipeg.

    Sincerely
    Mina Ibrahim

  9. cumulus60@yahoo.ca says:

    I just got in the mail a $416 radar ticket for speeding in a construction zone ( speed 74 km/h, limit 60 km/h), infraction which I strongly believe I did not commit.The likely cropped photo shows three cars travelling at short distances between them, likely at pretty much the same speed, the one in the middle being mine. Three cars (this is what the very likely cropped photo shows otherwise if not cropped I guess more cars should have been in that photo, cars likely travelling at the same speed) whose drivers all decided they can afford to risk of a $300-400 fine. The ticket shows it was taken at a range of eighty something meters however it does not show the distance travelled beyond the speed limiting sign when the photo was taken. I believe that it is wrong these radar operating businesses are allowed to operate this way. It is like they are allowed to say “you are guilty because I say so and because I wrote a distance on this ticket”. These very likely cropped photos are far away from being an irrefutable proof that an infraction was committed. I think the legislative should act so the radar operating businesses will have to provide irrefutable information on a speeding offence notification ticket. I would like to fight this in court but I really I do not have the stomach to receive a discourse in regards to why you should not speed in a construction zone while I strongly believe I am not guilty of such an offence. The operator shall present notes while I have none. I am careful not to disobey traffic rules. I think that looking over your shoulder all the time is not life so I did not make any notes for that day and any other day. First step that I would think the law should mandate: the operator must be supervised by a police officer or better by someone that can insure neutrality and very well documented measurements in regards to the relative position of the radar and the speed limiting sign must be reported and confirmed by accurate devices. I am very frustrated by this event, I am reluctant to pay a fine for an offence I strongly believe I did not commit but the system is developed in such a way that makes it very hard if not impossible to defend yourself. What can one do? It sounds like “you are guilty because I say so, you can spend time and money to defend yourself but this is futile”. I wonder who is checking on these radar operating businesses and how.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Make sure you plead not guilty. We will be posting a write-up soon about how to fight tickets so that we aren’t repeating the same information. Also remember that some mayoral candidates have strongly spoken against this abuse. Anyone who reads this, make sure to do your research and the issues and what position each candidate is taking when you vote.

  10. Ninja78 says:

    Received a photo radar ticket in the mail today for $391. It says I was going 73 on a 60 designated Construction Zone on Aug.30 at around 11am on WB bishop west of pembina. I always drive around that area and for sure don’t remember seeing a sign. I’m aware of the construction in the area and have always driven under 60 around these zones. The picture on my ticket does shows traffic flowing on both lanes and no construction signs around. Would I be able to fight this? did anybody else receive a ticket during the same time as me?

  11. xxstuh says:

    Where are mobile radar vehicles legally allowed to operate? I’ve been told mixed results and have found nothing directly stating a city law or bi – law reference # to be 100%.
    Some say they can operate anywhere but others say they are only allowed to setup in construction and school / playground zones.
    I got tagged by one on Grant just west of Renfrew. Could have sworn the speed limit was 60 so I would have been going 55-60 yet they say I was doing 65.
    any help is appreciated. Thanks

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Hello Timothy,
      They are only allowed to be in school, playground and construction zones. The area you are referring to on Grant is a school zone (not a proper one) but a school zone none the less. The HTA is very vague on the definitions of a school zone so while they are limited to those areas, the city does essentially have free range with photo radar based on exploiting the weak HTA definitions. The area on Grant that you got caught on is one of their top locations because it isn’t properly signed and the limit is under posted. That should be a 60 km/h limit by all engineering studies, but the city has successfully kept it inappropriately low for the benefit of enforcement. The signing problems there are outlined in the following complaint that we have filed against the city:

      http://wiseupwinnipeg.com/?p=668

      The issues addressed in that complaint on top of the speed limit setting issue are the reasons why they are doing so well at that location. The issue of improper speed limit setting is covered in the following video:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BKdbxX1pDw

      BTW, although it is a BC based video, the Winnipeg reference from 6:08 is from a report about Grant Ave. Our advice is to plead not guilty and follow the directions we’ve previously posted.

  12. jack says:

    Hi Everyone, I recently received a ticket in the mail for $835!!! the ticket said I was going 90 km in a 60. I notice that their is another van in the picture just ahead of me, is their any possible way that they may have captured the wrong vehicle? I got the ticket on Kenaston heading north of Lowson on Aug 12th. I went back to the location to check it out recently because I couldn’t even recall seeing any construction or signage. After returning to the location i noticed the signs are all there, but they’re extremely close together. Does anyone have any advice on how i can protest this. My wife is on mat leave, and there is no way we’ll be able to afford this, and I really don’t think I would have been going that fast anyway. any help would be appreciated, clearly this is not about construction worker safety.

  13. Jewels323 says:

    I have a question. I have received 2 speeding tickets in the mail in the last week. The interesting part is that in both I was doing the exact same speed limit. 63K/h. The pics were snapped by the exact same unit. Different operators but same unit. In the first picture there is a pick up truck heading towards me. and in the second picture there is a car ahead of me and beside me…how does a mobile camera unit determine which car is in violation? the other thing is..the mobile unit was not on Grant where I got the ticket…it actually parks in the run off street. Is that even legal? The first ticket was at 75 Meters away and the second ticket with all the vehicles present was at 115 Meters away. How accurate are these cameras at that distance? I agree that I could have been going around 55k but no where near 63 as I know what that area is like for cameras.
    I am going to go to court to see what can be done as now I am at 466.00 in speeding tickets. I don’t plan on taking Grant at all anymore…very sad.
    Can someone who knows the laws regarding these mobile camera units, chime in please? I want to know if I have a leg to stand on.

  14. brettcarter says:

    Hey guys! I recently got a $469.00 ticket on Keniston at Scurfield blvd, 1 day after the administrative screw up. Not only am i contesting my ticket, i plan to file a lawsuit against the province of Manitoba. If anybody has recently recieved a construction zone ticket at the location noted above, please contact me. My cell number is (204) 333-7720, and my email is brett.carter27@gmail.com. I only have a few questions for you which could help to set a precedent and rid our city and province of the cash grab that is photo radar enforcement. Thank you for your time. Now lets band together and make a difference!

    • Tessa says:

      Hello,

      I received a $391.25 ticket at this location on Saturday, July 12 @ 15:29, doing 73. I did not see any signage, there were no construction workers present, there were winds running 80-100 km/hr, there was a Severe Weather Warning in effect for the area (including tornado’s). Not even 20 minutes after this, the sky gave way and rained heavily…with the severe winds as noted it was quite the storm. The wind was so strong it pushed me over. I have many construction company clients and NONE of them would ever have their crews working in these conditions. I plan on fighting this one! These tickets are NOT about keeping construction workers safe, this is a completely blatant money grab.

    • ColbyS says:

      I got that exact same ticket ($469.00) in that exact place Brett. On July 13th which was a Sunday at 12:30 pm. I am heading in tomorrow morning to plead not guilty.

    • Kyle says:

      Hey guys! So I just got a ticket for 625$ in the mail for going 82 in the “60” construction zone on sunday august 10th at 1pm. I was southbound on Kenaston just after lowson Cr, im almost certain that there were no signs stating the speed limit was 60 because i drive down Kenaston daily and know that it is under construction but they change the zones where the speed limit is 60 daily. I was following the flow of traffic so it wasnt just me. Im looking for anyone who has proof that there were no signs at all or the signs were improperly placed. If so, text or call me at (204) 805-1025.

  15. 7upman says:

    Hello,
    My wife just phoned and told me there was a photo radar ticket in the mail today. The “Location of Offence” is listed as a 4 digit number, no street name or anything that makes any sense to us as to where it actually happened. Is this normal? If not, can we fight it based on the fact that there’s no intelligible location listed?
    Thanks for your input!

  16. smk says:

    We rcvd out 2nd redlight ticket from regent ave West @ Madeline St. 64km in a 50km
    Its right when you come out of the extra foods/dollar store parking lot- it seem the only way to get onto regent at times is to step on it.
    Is there any hope for fighting this ticket? lol

  17. smiley74 says:

    Maybe road construction can also be done in the evenings and nights-Like they do in (Montreal I heard) Set up lights plus less people driving on the road. Seems like a project takes all summer 3-5 months to complete.. When working on a 4 lane highway, close 2 and direct traffic to share the other lanes. Makes sense also.

  18. smiley74 says:

    okay, you’re busted for speeding, but it’s sure SAD to see that the money being paid from all these tickets doesn’t go into FIXING the streets. Country dirt roads are way better & safer to drive on then the city streets. SSooooo SAD! Where does all the tax payers money really go???

  19. Pam says:

    Good afternoon,
    I received a ticket from jan 12, saying I was driving 64 in a 50 zone, on Roblin just west of laxdale. I don’t believe I was driving this speed. I have a question about how far they photo radar vehicle can be away from my vehicle. It was in a parking lot on the other side of the street. This means it radared me across 3-4 lanes of traffic, a boulevard and the entrance of a parking lot. Is this too far to get an accurate reading?

    Any info would be greatly appreciated!

  20. Gechma says:

    Hey Chris… I was driving this past week north on McGregor (2 lanes both ways). Due to slippery road conditions I was at the end of a chain of vehicles that were going 40-45 in a 50. As I approached a photo radar jeep on the other side of the street facing towards me it flashed in my face. There was no oncoming traffic to trigger the light from the other side. Does this make any sense? Do radar vehicles take pictures of oncoming traffic? Can blowing snow trigger a photo radar unit? Just wondering if I am going to get a ticket for going 45 in a 50 that I am probably going to have no hope of fighting.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Hi Dan,

      They do their test flashes every half hour as part of calibration. They shouldn’t do it when there’s traffic around, but from what I’ve seen, they like to wait until a car is passing just to mess with people. Also, photo enforcement vehicles cannot target oncoming traffic. The law is that they have to have a picture of the back of the vehicle. Those two back shooting units work by catching the back of your vehicle after you have already passed the unit. In no way can a front plate ever be used to issue a photo enforcement ticket.

      Hope that answers everything,
      Chris

  21. Marty says:

    Hey,

    I recently got a ticket for speeding on the bridge that goes over the red river on the perimeter (in between st.mary’s road and Pembina). I was going 87 in a 70 zone. The ticket says there were workers on site and that it was a construction zone, however, the construction doesn’t start until the bridge going over Pembina, and workers were only on site there. Has anybody else got a ticket there? Anybody think I can fight this at all, if so what could be said in court?

    Thanks.

  22. Zelect says:

    http://jalopnik.com/this-is-the-best-takedown-of-the-speed-kills-myth-you-1302382244

    Speed KILLS….the pocketbook

    Check out the link.

    Very True in Winnipeg !!!

  23. wpgwpg says:

    I received a ticket from Logan&Blaine with 63 in 50. I truly don’t believe I was speeding as I’m very cautious going down Logan but when I looked at ticket it was shot at 3:31. My question is if I was speeding do I have any defense with the officer shooting tickets when he shouldn’t be there at that time as it shows no parking at 15:30. Also when I drove by the camera was set up horizontal while traffic travels vertical. Meaning the car sits on Blaine, on wrong side of road (at top of street on opposite side of the stop sign). Because of them not shooting straight on could that have affected speed? Thanks

    • SuzyQ says:

      I can’t quite figure out how to start a new comment, so I’ll just piggy back on this one. I just received a 65 in a 50 ticket on WB Grant West of Thurso. Like everyone else, the pic is zoomed in tight, can’t see if there are any other cars nearby. My question is: I was not driving the car. My husband was, but the car is registered to me. I plan on pleading not guilty. The picture was taken on Friday the 13th at 17:02, the height of rush hour. Hubby had left McNally Robinson and turned left onto Grant from Nathaniel. I don’t know where the radar was, I was not with him, but he did tell me traffic was quite backed up and there’s no way he could have been going that fast. Do I have to appear in court to fight this? Or does he, as the driver of the car when the alleged infraction occured?

      • Chris Sweryda says:

        On the back of the ticket, you can fill in the part where you authorize another person to appear for the ticket. Fill you husbands name in on that part of the ticket and you will have to sign it as the registered owner. When the court date comes, only he will have to go.

  24. Brett Carter says:

    Hi guys! I pleaded not-guilty to a mobile photo enforcement ticket I received, and my trial date is scheduled for March 18th 2014. I was wondering if anybody had any advice to give on how to proceed/what to say in court etc. thanks!

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Hello Everyone,

      I am disabling the comments right now due to excessive spam. I simply don’t have the time anymore to sort through it. I will leave all the older comments since most people’s questions will already have been answered. Please use our e-mail or phone numbers to contact us.

  25. Jen says:

    I received a speeding ticket in March on Roblin just east of William Clement Parkway. I was turning left from the Moray Bridge onto Roblin heading east. The photo radar vehicle was parked in the St. Mary’s Anglican Church driveway just before the 50 km/h sign. I questioned how, after gaining speed from sitting at a red light and turning left, I could have possibly reached 64 km/h in such a short distance. Also, the photo was so cropped you could not see my surroundings in the picture or if in fact another car next to me should have received the ticket and possibly not me? Maybe we both got a ticket? I paid the ticket, only because I am a teacher and could not have possibly had time off to go to court to fight the ticket. On my way to school today, I saw the vehicle again in the same spot. I took its photo clearly showing that he is parked before the 50 km/h sign. I circled back, heading westbound down Roblin to see if it is in fact 60km/h before you cross the intersection of William Clement and Roblin, and it is!
    My questions are, how can they get away with ticketing cars that have not passed the 50 km/h sign yet and also are they allowed to be parked in a church driveway? Do they not have to be stationed on city property?

    Thanks for all your efforts Chris!!

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      It has been said that the reason they crop the pictures now is so that you can’t see if there were other vehicles around. Many tickets were being thrown out of court because there were other vehicles in the picture that could also have been the one to trigger the radar.

      http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/41/4167.asp

      They would have been using a DragonCam at that location. It is permissible because the DragonCam shows the distance to the target. What they’ll do is point the cam at the 50 km/h sign and get a distance reading. Then, they’ll target vehicles that are 1 m past that point because they have technically entered the 50 km/h zone. Again, that is another location where the speed reduction should be on both sides of the road and if it were in other cities, would be. They have put dual signed school zone signs on both sides at this location. The median school zone sign is a distraction from seeing the speed reduction that’s on the right only and that’s assuming the sight lines aren’t blocked by another vehicle. I don’t know about the church parking issue, but I do know that some of these places where they’ve been seen have given permission.

      • jim says:

        That reduction sign is gone, not that it would matter for this person’s ticket since she turned off of Moray. It used to be just before the intersection on the right side. Pretty sure it’s gone now.

  26. Leila says:

    I got speeding ticket on WB Grant Ave West of Thurso St. last May and I plead not guilty and scheduled to appear in court in November. I take that route everyday for 3 years and I am very well aware of the issues on speed radar so I am very conscious on my speed on that road. If I say in court that I plead not guilty because I don’t think the radar is accurate due to the fact that Thurso St is just less than 200m away from the traffic camera by the pony corral and that street has a pedestrian light aside from the fact that I am very well aware that there’s a mobile radar somewhere on the area. Most of the time I get to that Pony Corral area westbound traffic usually read light so I cant think how can I be 65KPh in short distance from stop position. If I was running when I past pony corral it definitely less than 50 and I wouldn’t speed up as there’s a pedestrian light on Thurso street. This is the first time I got speeding ticket for 7 years of driving here in Winnipeg and I really cant believe I got speeding ticket on Grant. now I am having a second heart of going to court because when I called MPI they said it might affect my ratings which mean I will get less discount which I don’t like to happen. IF the judge verdict is guilty will it affect my ratings? What should I tell the judge?

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      If MPI told you that a photo ticket can effect your license, they’re full of garbage. It is in the Highway Traffic Act plain and simple that a photo ticket does not go on a driver’s record. It is always good to fight your tickets because they often don’t show up and when they do, you can still win for any number of reasons or get a reduction. The worst that can happen is you don’t win or get a reduction and you have the same fine you already had except you got to take the photo radar operator off the street for two hours and cost them court time. If even a small percentage of people did this it would weigh down the system and it wouldn’t be a cash grab anymore.

      • Leila says:

        I was decided to contest the speeding ticket until I talked to MPI that it is depending on the Judge recommendation if I will get demerits if found guilty. It’s really hard for me to pay that $250.00 fine for something I know I didn’t commit but I felt I am oblige to do so in order not to increase my insurance. The second time I saw this issue with Grant and Nataniel on TV I swore to myself that if I get ticket on that area I will contest as I usually set my cruise control to 50kph on that road to make sure I will not over speed. I am not sure if I can say that in court though, not sure of using cruise control in the city is illegal.

  27. WinnipegDriver says:

    Hi guys, I was recently ticketed WB Grant Ave West of Thurso St. S, I believe at this location it would be a mobile radar unit. The photo is tightly cropped around my vehicle so that I cannot tell the exact location based on my surroundings. There are also two other vehicles in the photo travelling in the same direction, in close proximity to mine. One directly to the left and one in front. As well as two more vehicles in the oncoming lane. After doing some research it seems some Canadian cities simply do not issue tickets in cases like this because it may be questionable which vehicle was tagged, however in Winnipeg they do. Isn’t it possible the vehicle to my left was passing me and triggered it? How and at what point can I ask for more information about the speeds of these other vehicles or whether they got tickets? Any advice?

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      You won’t be able to get any information regarding other drivers. What you need to do is plead not guilty by filling out the back of the ticket and mailing it in. Before your trial, you will get all the notes and information that the court has regarding the offence. Most of the questions you have about the other vehicles will happen in court when you get your chance to question the photo radar operator.

      • WinnipegDriver says:

        Right… so I guess my biggest question then is how to approach this defense of there being too many vehicles in the photo to establish which vehicle was speeding? Is this a valid defense in Winnipeg? It seems like it may be in other cities.

        • Mel says:

          If this is the fixed photo radar camera at the intersection (not mobile radar) they have weights under the road to determine which vehicle was speeding through the lights or running a red. I have been driving and was going 70 in a 60, MOBILE photo radar went off but because there were cars in the lanes next to me I never received a ticket because there’s no way to prove that I was the vehicle speeding. Good luck!

  28. Sam says:

    Hey guys.

    I just received my first ticket in years. Accused of 64 in a 50 zone. The location is simply listed as: “Winnipeg, Manitoba” and again Province: Manitoba. I’m not sure where the photo radar was set up. I plan to challenge the ticket based on these grounds, is that enough, and how should I prepare my defense?

    I believe the location is Northbound Plessis, not sure on the crossroad but its before Kildare. I recently moved to the area and noticed one day that someone was protesting a speed trap ahead with a large cardboard sign. Someone even taped a piece of looseleaf paper to a construction sign to warn motorists. I usually drive diligently and have been keeping my eye open for where the photo radar parks and sets up but I haven’t noticed them.

    Either way I am only speculating that this is the location of the accused offense. Shouldn’t it be clearly shown on the ticket.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Hi Sam,

      The location should be at the very bottom of the ticket in small print. For your defense, most people’s argument is that they thought the limit was 60 km/h due to the 60 km/h sign north of Kildare and no 50 km/h signs for traffic coming off of Ravelstone or Rougeau. That might be what you should use if it applies to your case.

    • tan1 says:

      i just received a a ticket at the same street and for the same speed. My daughter says I drive like a granny. I say I am cautious and I drive with my cruise control on. I don’t need to speed as I am not in a rush. Anyway, there is a truck on my left side and it appears to be going at relatively the same speed if not, faster than I. I want to fight this and I am to the point that it is a camera being set up and going off on a vehicle. I do not believe it to be the actual speed. I wonder how many people are getting tickets from a camera not working right?!

  29. Justin says:

    Hey guys,

    It seems most of the focus on here is in regards to speeding tickets. Has anyone examined the issue of the diamond lane on Westbound Portage and turning north onto Wall street. They’ve got cops stationed there everyday and it’s near impossible to legally enter the turn lane becuase traffic often gets backed up past the previous street. This cash grab has been going on for a while.

    Needless to say, they issued me a ticket today, and I could swear I didn’t enter the lane until after Goulding. Apparently my word against his won’t hold up in court.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      I know that spot very well. I would fight it on the basis that the sign at Goulding is mounted on the light pole across the sidewalk instead of on the sign pole where it should be and is at almost all other locations and would be most visible.

  30. Ben A says:

    Hi Chris!

    I’m a big fan of what you and Todd have been doing in the city for the past few years and have followed it all the way along.

    I just received my first Grant Ave ticket, 63km/hr in a 50, and I have a few issues with it. I work in Grant Park Shopping Center and have for the past 2.5 years. I always take the same route home. I exit the mall parking lot onto Nathaniel, and then I turn left onto westbound Grant Ave. The ticket says ‘Westbound Grant Ave west of Thurso St.’ Thurso St is not on my commute! The picture is clearly of Grant and Nathaniel, as you can see the GP/PanAm field in the background(there is also a light standard in the picture). My plan is to fight it but it’s intimidating. I know for a fact that I wasn’t at Grant and Thurso and I also know for a fact that the picture does not represent Grant and Thurso. If it did you would be able to see the GP Mall sign and the gas station in the background. I also highly doubt I was going that fast, #1 I’m well aware of the photo radar situation in this area and intentionally mind my speed as I turn onto Grant, #2 as many before me have said, it would be extremely hard to reach that speed in such a short distance.

    The fact that the picture does not represent the accused location is a major fault on the part of the operator but do I have enough here to win a case?

    Your thoughts?

    Ben

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Hi Ben,

      I think your case will be the test for that because I haven’t heard of that happening yet. The description might be considered accurate because the location is west of Thurso (as well as Nathaniel). I agree that it should say west of Nathaniel. There is nothing to worry about when pleading not guilty to a ticket and one way or another, you need to fight it. Fill out the back of the ticket and indicate that you wish to plead not guilty and mail it in to them. In court, you can question the operator about the location as well as anything you think is relevant. Don’t forget that by fighting the ticket, it can easily get dropped; especially if the operator doesn’t show.

      Chris.

      • Ben A says:

        Thanks Chris!

        If anyone knows please respond. Does a ticket have to accurately state where the violation happened? The fact that it says west of Thurso St means it could be anywhere on Grant west of Thurso? I mean to me that hardly makes sense because all they have to do is say Grant west of Thurso and you could be as far as Moray and it’s still accurate. Surely there has to be some rule saying they can’t do that. If I got a ticket where the picture showed me on Portage near Polo Park and the ticket said, ‘Portage west of Main’ its still accurate but can they legally do that or do they have to be more specific/accurate?

      • WinnipegDriver says:

        I just received a ticket with the same location noted, but the photo is cropped so tightly you can’t see where it is. Curious what is the date of yours? Trying to learn a bit more first but planning to plead not guilty due to the photo being full of other vehicles.

        • annoyed says:

          I just got a ticket also “WB Grant Ave West of Thurso St. S the week of July 15. And the photo of my car is so tightly cropped the top of all the signs are cropped out and no building are recognizable. The first time I got a photo speed ticket the first year they were installed, I recall there were 2 photos in very sharp crisp detail. This ticket has one fuzzy photo, just in focus enough to see my licence plate. Have they changed the photo quality to make it harder to fight the ticket?

          The ticket is for 63 in the 50 zone and I am very vigilant not to go anything above 50 in that area because of the way they ticket there.

          I am going to stop going to grant park mall and using any of that part of Grant Avenue merchants at all.

      • Brittannie C says:

        Hi there,

        I just received a photo radar ticket from this exact location : Westbound Grant Ave West of Thurso St S. However, very similar to Ben, this is not my commute. I work on Taylor Ave and drive North down Nathaniel St to turn Westbound onto Grant Ave. I’ve taken this route numerous times over the past 2 years and am fully aware of the speed limit down Grant Ave. The ticket shows 66 km/h in a 50 zone, like what everyone else has said, how is it possible to reach this speed in a short distance?

        I want to fight this ticket

    • Peggy says:

      Ben,
      My story is the exact same as yours! I also work at Grant Park Mall and received a ticket for going 63km/h on WB Grant Ave West of Thurso. I know that I turned left (west) off Nathaniel and onto Grant Ave that day as I left work….I never passed Thurso at all. The picture on the ticket is cropped so tight to my car that I cannot tell where the location is. I am fairly certain I could not have been going 63km/h after having just turned left. I find it amazing that as I read the previous posts on the site, how many tickets are issued with this same location with the cars clocked at 63km/hr….it seems almost like this mobile camera gives out tickets with the same speed to every one!!!
      I am tempted to go to traffic court to argue it. The picture is so blurry that the plate cannot be made out and there are several poles in front of the license plate and car. But taking the time off work to go to court would be difficult for me, so I may just have to pay the $221 :(
      Good luck on your fight. Will be interested in hearing what happens.

      • Chris Sweryda says:

        Hi Peggy,

        If you can’t go to court yourself, I recommend at least giving it to RadarRodney to fight. He only charges you half of what he saves you so you have nothing to lose.

        http://www.radarrodney.com/

        At least you didn’t just send them the money which is what they hope you do. It costs them a lot of money to take a ticket to court and if you go that way, the only thing that can happen is you pay the same fine or less. As far as the cropping issue goes, you might find this story very interesting which I think describes what is going on here:

        http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/41/4167.asp

  31. chris k says:

    History……Oh yeah, when your parents thought you were old enough and ready to drive, they let you drive and thus gave you your license. Then government took control of driver licensing from parents and turned it into a indirect form of tax collection and thus taking over total control, hence its now a privilege to drive on (their roads)…as stated by them. Everything is about the money unless you print the money! Do your research on everything and be a critical thinker:)

  32. chris k says:

    For the people (who are in the minority) who say photo radar is a good thing because they don’t want to see people getting hurt or killed, need to re-evaluate their double standard, hypocritical stupidity.
    So you care so much about saving lives and stopping injury. Ok…..if you care so much about these things, donate 25% of your income to helping injured people and dying people across the world……Oh…you don’t want to do that hey? What…….you just said you care about saving people……hmm…..So you don’t really care……or at least not about other people across the world. Don’t like them or what? We all live a double standard.
    Study history and look at the big picture of government and the monetary system. You read the paper right. how many more scams and scandals do you need to see before you wake up from your stupidity and start critical thinking (not group think) for once and understand how governments are fabian style, slowly but surely stripping us of our excess income. yes its worse in other parts of the world, but should we allow it to get worse here?
    For your kids future, my kids future and everyone’s kids future, lets not just give away our quality of life over time to a government who is never short of money when they want it, but is always short of money when the working people need it The corruption is never ending, including this indirect form of tax.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      I’d also like to add that if these people actually cared about road safety and didn’t get a sadistic pleasure out of other people paying money they can’t afford, they would be on our side and wanting proper speed signing and other traffic infrastructure that both makes the roads safer and lowers ticketing.

  33. Don Roser says:

    To all the “innocent ” advocates . Go back to school and learn how to read and understand that it isn’t a right to drive but rather a privilege. 35 years on the road and I bet 95% of you are recognizable on the road. Could probably reduce the costs and time in the court systems by admitting that you actually , maybe, could be the R E S P O N S I B L E ( Please repeat the spelling and vocalize the word to make sure that you have a better chance of recognizing the word when it is used in a full sentence) one. The attitude of entitlement coming from people in Winnipeg is sickening,

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      That couldn’t be any more ignorant. After all the information that has been posted on here, I can’t believe there are still people that think like that.

      • Cliff says:

        Actually Chris, I can’t believe there are people like you and this joke of a website.

        • Chris Sweryda says:

          So you think it’s safe to be taking down speed limit signs? You support having 206 missing school zone signs? You support shortening amber light times well below engineering standards until a certain quota of tickets is reached? If that’s what you think, then I’m afraid your beyond educating.

          • Cliff says:

            Nice way to twist things, ever consider becoming a spin doctor? Maybe you already are? You certainly know how to shovel it. You, this website and all your little follows aka the poor driver’s of Winnipeg are sad and deserve each and every ticket they get.

            As a matter of fact, I am going to contact my Federal, Provincial and Civic political representatives and petition them to change / amend the HTA so that tickets given by photo radar (manned and unmanned) go against the registered owner of the vehicle, unless they can prove that they were not the driver at the time of the occurrence AND identify who the driver was (friend, family member, who ever). Maybe then we will have some even better accountability and get more of these bad drivers off the streets.

            • Chris Sweryda says:

              Didn’t really see any sort of argument to what I pointed out. There really isn’t anything to spin. Those are facts and there isn’t much more to say.

              Good luck getting photo radar tickets to go on someone’s license. In order for it to go off of a person’s license, they will have to serve the ticket and identify the person as the driver. They will also need camera’s on the far side of the offence location to photograph the driver. That simply does not make them money. Also, if it involves license points, people are more likely to fight and cost them even more court time. Let’s just say it’s never going to happen because we all know that this program is about making money and has nothing to do with road safety. Also, not quite sure why you want to see people getting tickets they can’t afford rather than proper traffic engineering to prevent these problems.

              • Cliff says:

                If people drove according to the rules of the road, they’d not be getting tickets, plain and simple. I’ve held my license for over 30 years. Did I speed, yes, when I was younger and even, dare I say, foolish about it. Did I get caught, yes.

                Did I whine about it? NO, I owned up and paid my fines and chose to smarten up.

                Top tier of MPI’s discount system for I don’t know how many years now, no accidents, no tickets and I am reaping the rewards. I also drive long haul, throughout North America.

                So not only do I seem to be able to drive responsibly in this City, but in numerous cities throughout the US and Canada. NO tickets, no accidents in over 12 years as a commercial driver and even longer as a regular joe blow driver like many of the people here.

                On top of this, I hold a Province of Manitoba driver’s instructor’s certificate, Class 1 and 3-5. To get that, not only did I have to rewrite every written test, including air brake, I had to redo my Class 5 road test as well as my Class 1 and Airbrake tests. On my road tests, 100%, on my written tests, comprising of over 200 questions, 2 wrong (a little disappointed in myself as I should have gotten them all).

                So, really, what possible excuse do you people really have? Reality is, there isn’t one. These people are just bad driver’s, with bad habits who make the conscious CHOICE to drive poorly – PERIOD.

                You want to eliminate these supposed cash grabs then try driving like a responsible adult. When everyone CHOOSES to do this, the “problem” is solved. If you can’t do that, then take the big orange pumpkin (well I guess Transit buses are not really orange anymore, are they?).

    • Cliff says:

      Here, here Don, here, here

  34. Chris says:

    Going on 5 years now without a ticket then suddenly 4 appear in my mailbox. There are 2 spots where they have been snapping photos in my neighborhood very near my home for years but suddenly 3 of these tickets are in completely new spots but on the same road. One was taken from across the street, across a grass boulevard separating the two lanes of traffic and through 2 tree’s. Is this permitted? 1 was also on the Disraeli bridge which I haven’t been on in years. There is no sign there and traffic was moving fast so I assumed the speed was 70km/h on there and got ticketed for 77km/h in a 60km/h.

  35. matthew says:

    well i just got my first photo radar ticket at Location 3825 …… Disraeli Fwy east says i was doing 76 in a 60 km zone at 86m and fine is 259.50$ as i live beside the bridge and taking it is the one and only way i can get out of my house due to construction.(It sucks) And i am aware of this trap and it is downhill coming off the bridge i know i gain speed so im always slowing down and i dont think i was going that fast so im planning on pleading not guilty as sole provider of a famly of 5 yes 259.50$ is worth my time! I am a vary safe driver and i dont want to be part of the citys cash grab can someone tell me how long this takes and if i lose how much extra will i have to shell out Things i should say or ask

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Hi Matthew,

      Sorry to hear they got you. It won’t cost you anything by fighting and worst that can happen is you loose and the judge doesn’t give you a reduction leaving you with the exact same fine you already have. Once you get the ticket sent in, you’ll get a court date which likely won’t be for months. Closer to your court date, give me a call and I can tell you how it works in court. In the meantime, I suggest joining our yellow sign group that has been shutting down some of these locations. Here is a link to a piece I wrote about that specific location.

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/136771203/Disraeli-and-Henderson-Photo-Enforcement

      • joe says:

        How come you don’t mention in the piece that it is a new bridge and the sign was on the old bridge? Instead you make it sound like they removed it to trap drivers. They should out the sign back up, definitely!

        • Chris Sweryda says:

          You seem to be implying that it isn’t a deliberate trap. When the new bridge went in, they replaced every sign from the old bridge except the speed signs. This even includes the signs that say “Disraeli Bridge” and “Red River”. They’re doing the same thing they did on Grant last year. The old sign went missing because Hydro changed the light pole. The city refused to replace the sign for months while ignoring my requests and continued issuing tickets. Only after I embarrassed them in front of a public hearing and the province did they put the sign up and of coarse, they claimed they had no idea it was missing.

    • mathew says:

      hey there matthew kinda cowincadental but my name is also mathew and i got a ticket at 3825 on june 18 2013 2 hours b4 yours and mine was also 76 ina 60… and i dont speed so im kinda curious if their camera is kinda off… shoot me a txt or email and let me no how fighting it goes i plan on going in tomorow morning to fight mine 588-1621

    • Robyn says:

      Hi, I just so happened to ALSO get a ticket at 3825 for 76 in a 60 on June 24… Any reason we ALL are being ticketed for the EXACT same speed?!

      • Another Matthew says:

        IF you plead not guilty, with two tickets, do they book them at the same time, or do you get two court dates?? And do they have a fairly accurate schedule or do you need to book the whole day off work?

        Thanks!!

        • Chris Sweryda says:

          They will usually book for the same time; especially if you mail both in together. You would only need a half day because they have a morning docket at 9:00 and an afternoon at 2:00. The morning won’t go past lunch and the afternoon won’t go past 4:30. Photo tickets are the last ones to be called and usually don’t come up until an hour or two into the court session. Some people even go an hour or two late for that purpose, but it’s a gamble that yours hasn’t yet been called.

          • Emily says:

            A few questions I can’t seem to find the answer for and I’m considering fighting my Disraeli ticket…

            My ticket doesn’t state I was in a school, playground, intersection, or construction zone and as far as I can remember none of those things were within a reasonable distance of where I received the photo radar. If it doesn’t say I was in one of these zones, are they even allowed to be there?

            Where can I find the breakdown of the fee? I have found an area of the HTA that states I cannot be charged over $7.50 for each km over the limit….my fine is more then double that.

            From my recollection the van was on a street beside the Disraeli (going wb down the bridge), facing me, yet the photo is of my rear plate. The street it was parked on also seemed to be at a lower level then disraeli. I remember thinking “if that’s a photo radar, I can’t possibly legitimately get a ticket since I’m going downhill, I’m on a ramp, and that van is facing me”. But lo and behold…

            Do I have anything here Chris?

  36. Bradley says:

    Hello,

    Well guess what… I got a 2nd ticket by the same officer within 2 months. First was a radar trap in front of the Assiniboine Zoo, which I paid as I really didn’t have a reason for doing 86 in a 60 zone. But this 2nd ticket is an outright scam. I travel Northbound on the Route 90 bridge over the Assiniboine River twice a day. So this time I was in the curb lane, going hardly faster than the rest of the traffic. For those who don’t know, after the bridge you go underneath Portage, so there is a very long stretch of downhill roadway with 70k speed limit. People always go fast here, I mean its hard not to defy gravity. Anyhow, he pulls me in. 86 in a 70 zone.

    On the ticket I pleaded not guilty and sent in a letter saying: 1. I was hardly moving faster than the traffic. 2. My speed is not terribly high. 3. Unusual spot to do radar. I asked for a stay of proceedings, which they haven’t given me. My court date is next April… so what do I do then? Never been to court, not sure what to expect. I had planned to send them the letter again now and then 2 months before April.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Hi Brad,

      When you go to court in April, I would suggest maintaining the position that you were going with the flow of traffic and that had you slowed down, it would have been a hazard. I have seen that work in court in regards to the Salter overpass. The person said that someone was right behind them and had they braked, they likely would have been rear ended. Give me a call when you can and I’ll go over with you what happens in court and the procedure.

      Chris

  37. Bill says:

    Just got a speeding ticket at ” WB Disraeli FWY West of Argyle St”. Is this a new location? The Argyle school doesn’t have a playground, and we are talking about a Freeway here. I was tagged on a Thursday night at 18:58. What a cash grab!

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Hi Bill,
      That is very much a new location. It’s been a problem for about a month now. That location is also at a high school which until 2002, wasn’t even a eligible to be a school zone. They only made high schools school zones the year photo radar came in to increase the number of enforceable locations since school zones, playground zones and construction zones are the only areas where mobile photo enforcement is permitted. Here’s a piece I wrote about the Disraeli location.

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/136771203/Disraeli-and-Henderson-Photo-Enforcement

      Also, make sure you plead not guilty to that ticket.

      • Karl says:

        I received a ticket here as well. Since the change in school zone rules this year, aren’t photo radar vehicles allowed to ticket in that location? Wouldn’t one loose if they plead not guilty?

        • Chris Sweryda says:

          You never loose by pleading not guilty because the fine can’t be increased and the worst that can happen is you cost them court time. The easiest way to win is if they don’t show up for court. If they do, I would still argue the case and if you loose, still ask for a reduction on the bases that they don’t ticket during school times, it’s on a downhill, the speed limit signs were removed, the bridge is a barricaded structure with a pedestrian overpass and the school is a high school.

    • joe says:

      the limit is still 60. it’s posted. if you didn’t see it, then you’re not supposed to assume the speed is 73 or higher. it’s so simple.

      who cares about what is zoned what is why it’s zoned this way or the name of the Disraeli. the limit is the limit. it’s so easy to follow these rules. when you do, you don’t get a ticket.

      if this is your first ticket, then go to court and get them to excuse you this once. Not the day of the week or the time of day or the presence of a playground or the title ‘Freeway’, or when it became a zone and why it became one will matter to the judge.

      plead not guilty, say it won’t happen again. you may catch a break.

      • Chris Sweryda says:

        And I’m sure your one of the dangerous ones who will go 50 on Bishop Grandin when the 80 km/h sign is missing just to make your point. That’s following the 50 unless otherwise posted rule despite the type or road, traffic speeds or anything else. You’d be more of a hazard then the guy going 93 km/h.

  38. staci says:

    I have gotten two tickets from plessis and Rousseau. Today I drove by there and the photo radar vehicle is parked in a no parking zone on the street. I’m going to go that way again and if its still there take a picture. How is that legal? He parks on the section of the street with a clearly marked no parking sign to take pictures of speeders.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      It’s very much illegal, but who polices the city? They’re not going to give themselves a ticket. Here’s a story on that and if you could, please leave some comments on it. As you can see, there’s those few city and police workers that are always commenting on there to try and discredit us.

      http://www.winnipegsun.com/2013/06/16/photo-radar-units-parked-illegally-group

      We have had quite a bit of discussion about that location and the illegal parking issue on our Facebook group. If you use Facebook, I suggest joining use at.

      https://www.facebook.com/groups/157907491221/

    • BOOOOO says:

      I got two tickets as well on Plessis 2 within 5 days for driving 63 in a 50, Very annoyed!!!!

      • Chris Sweryda says:

        That is the threshold as are most. As I always say, make sure to plead not guilty to those. If you can, also join us with shutting them down using the warning signs and join our Facebook page.

      • Cliff says:

        So how retarded are you to get 2 tickets in the same spot? You not only deserve the tickets for speeding in the first place, you deserve them for being such a retard.

        • Chris Sweryda says:

          Cliff,
          What your not getting is that you don’t get the first ticket until two weeks after the first offence so you have no idea you have a ticket coming and by the time it does come, it’s very easy for more to be coming. There are many issues with improper signing and setting of speed limits in this city which is why so many thousands of tickets are being issued unfairly. I’m not going to waste time re posting stuff so just look further back in the comments if you would like to educate yourself a little bit.

          • Cliff says:

            Seriously? That’s the best you can come up with? Oh I get it – none of you seem to though.

            To you and all the other retards who insist on speeding and then crying once caught, that there aren’t enough signs or that they are “hidden” – go back and redo your Class 5. Hopefully most of you will fail and be off the roads for a good long time. Maybe even some of you will go back and get some driving lessons – relearn the rules of the road and SMARTEN UP!

            What’s the default speed in Manitoba when there is no signs posted or if you are not sure???

            I might as well give the answer, since too many of you are too stupid, apparently, to know, it’s 50 KPH.

            It’s not a crime to do 50 KPH or less on the city streets, especially if you are not sure or DO NOT KNOW (or if it’s not posted, or the signs are not clearly visible or missing, or whatever other lame excuse you can dream up).

            And if you do not know, I will refer you back to my comments on the default speeds in this Province, 50 KPH.

            I won’t even get into school zones or passing construction workers or emergency vehicles pulled over on the road (I’ve all to often witnessed you tools doing stupid things in those instances as well).

            If you are too dumb to know this, get off the road or pay your fines and stop whining. On the bright side, I can thank all you lousy drivers for giving me the hefty discounts on my driver’s license and car insurance.

            BTW, those posted speed limits are just that – LIMITS, the MAXIMUM you CAN or should go under IDEAL driving conditions – daylight, clear, sunny, summer days with good visibility and you as a driver in good condition as well.

            • Chris Sweryda says:

              Normally, I wouldn’t approve a comment with name calling because as far as I’m concerned once you resort to that, you’ve lost the argument. There are some issues with your points that I can’t help but want to address.

              First thing to say is I’ve never had a ticket and have a spotless driving record with full merits and discounts so this claim that I want to speed is absurd.

              Now, as I’ve said hundreds of times on here that you are not getting is that the 50 unless otherwise posted rule cannot be applied to speed reduction locations because of the presence of the higher speed posting. Once a road is posted at a speed other than 50 km/h, a driver is not expected to know the limit is dropped until passing a PROPERLY signed speed reduction. Improperly signed speed drops are the locations where the vast majority of tickets are being issued. So, the signing is everything and the default speed rule is not applicable.

              I’m not going to get into the issue of poorly signed high speed roads and how they erode the 50 unless otherwise posted rule creating more room for confusion. I also will not get into the proper setting of speed limits, but those are things you might want to look into.

              I also take issue with you saying that there is no harm in doing less than 50 km/h if you don’t see signs. On roads like Fermor where the speed limit is 90 km/h, that is simply not a safe speed to be doing and not what any driver would think is a reasonable limit (in ideal conditions). It is also a crime to be going unreasonably slow. It’s called impeding traffic and can be just as dangerous as driving faster than other traffic. Collision probably is greatly increased with large differences between faster and slower moving traffic so proper signing is a must on high speed roads and 50 unless otherwise posted is just not reasonable in these situations.

              I’m glad you mentioned school zones because when I studied school zones last year, I found 206 missing signs all of which I listed and provided that list to the city. To date, only a small handful of signs have gone up and almost all are at schools where I was able to convince the principal to complain to the city. I think I’ve done a great thing with promoting road safety with that effort alone. What have you done?

              I really hope you respond to this because for the most part, you guys are all the same. Name call, make statements and then when confronted with a counter argument, just disappear. BTW, if you would like to know more about how bad the speed reductions are signed, go to:\

              http://www.scribd.com/doc/125744844/What-is-Wrong-With-Winnipeg-s-Speed-Reduction-Signs

    • Jackie says:

      I know a few people who have gotten tickets at Plesis and Rosseau. Speaking with a former police officer he told me the camera cannot be perpendicular to the street they are monitoring. The camera must be pointed out the back window of the camera looking head on to the traffic coming towards it. The cameras are not configured for the perpendicular angle and so the speeds are inflated. Is there truth to this? If so this an argument to bring forward when fighting the ticket.

      • Chris Sweryda says:

        I don’t know much about that argument because this is new equipment that they only got in January. It’s going to be hard to prove they’re inaccurate because last time we went to court over that, they dropped the ticket and left Todd with the $7,000 lawyer bill.

        • Cliff says:

          Too funny, good to know you got your just deserts. Should have manned up and paid the ticket but judging from the mentality of this website, I suppose that a $7000 is worth it to prove your invalid points and opinions.

          • Chris Sweryda says:

            I don’t know what part of that made you think our points and opinions are invalid. If they were, we would have lost the case instead of having the crown just run away from it. That proves the opposite.

  39. Roberto DeMarco says:

    YOU MUST SUBMIT TO INSPECTION, NOW! Since being in office, did your know, the NDP enacted changes to the Highway Traffic Act that enables any police officer to detain you and your vehicle for an “inspection” on the spot, with no limit to the time they detain you.

    The law was written such that there does not have to be any reason, or probable cause to demand to pull you over for the roadside inspection.

    At this point, understand that you may have done absolutely anything wrong and the officer does not have any specific reason to suspect you have. All the officer has is a look at the outside of your vehicle, and a look at you.

    The practice now, is to pull over a vehicle, ask the driver for licence and registration and the officer keep your documents and will then demand you follow them to a inspection station at a local city property, mall or whatever.

    There, they will have you drive up onto ramps and start “inspecting” your vehicle.

    Your freedom of movement, your right to any privacy, probable cause is all irrelevant, welcome to socialist Manitoba.

    To my understanding, the inspections are conducted by individuals who are not necessarily certified mechanics. They will advise police officers (building relationships) to issue tickets for the infractions. This process is all about enforcement, there are no warnings, no educational support for the conditions they notice.

    Again, to my understanding, you are issued order for re-inspection within 14 days, and if you cannot complete within the 14 days, your registration and insurance is cancelled. No matter how simple the issue. MPI will then also refuse to insure your vehicle even for “storage” or lay-up. That broken mudflap may render your vehicle such a danger to the public that it is no longer safe to insure in storage. Even if there is a legitimate reason, like parts availability.
    ______________________________
    Manitoba Highway Traffic Act:

    INSPECTION OF EQUIPMENT

    Inspection by peace officer
    65(1) A peace officer may at any time stop and inspect or cause to be inspected any equipment on a vehicle or bicycle on a highway, and may, if the equipment or any part thereof does not comply with this Act or with the regulations, require that the driver or operator thereof have, and the driver or operator shall proceed forthwith to have, the equipment made to comply therewith.

    Co-operation by driver
    65(2) The driver or operator of a vehicle or bicycle the equipment of which is being inspected by a peace officer as provided in subsection (1) shall render such reasonable assistance, and provide such reasonable information, as the peace officer may require.
    ________________________________

    This is all done in the name of safety.

    It is irrelevant if your vehicle has come from shop and been safetied recently, the onus is on you, Joe Public to be conversant on all relevant laws detailing the equipment of your vehicle and the condition of all those components of your vehicle. (When is the last time you crawled under your vehicle to ensure all was alright) I am acquainted with an individual who got a ticket for an axle seal leak.

    To my understanding, the officers time and resources are paid for by the provincial government through your MPI premiums, and, these types of inspections on private “light vehicles” only occur in Winnipeg. Winnipeggers are targeted unfairly compared to the rest of the Province.

    Tickets affect your drivers licence and the insurance rates you pay for vehicles registered in your name, so there is an interest in undertaking these activities to increase the total amounts that may be collected from you.

    This page is mostly about lidar, and photo radar. I find the things done on those fronts for less disturbing than what transpires with the Vehicle Inspections Unit.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Good point. I like to call that part of the HTA the “fishing section.” If they have nothing they can stick on you, they can stop you and keep searching until they find something. There’s also the “blanket section”, the “guilty until proven innocent and then still guilty section” The blanket section says that you shall not drive imprudently but gives no specifics. They can make it up as they go and say anything is imprudent even though it’s nothing that is actually illegal. The guilty section says that if your accused of DUI, and are found to be innocent, you don’t get any of your money back. I know of a specific case where the police didn’t like someone so they charged her for DUI. She was over the limit, but wasn’t anywhere near her car and didn’t even have the keys on her but they said in their opinion, she had been driving earlier. Of coarse the charge didn’t stick but MPI still got to charge a huge premium on her license and the police got to impound the car for a month. None of that was refunded because the HTA says the get to keep the money “whether guilty or not” None of this would ever stand up to a charter challenge, but nobody has the money or ambition to take one of these charges that far.

  40. Going Broke to feed the police says:

    So far, six tickets from the photo radar car on Plessis at Rosseau. I slowed my driving upon receiving the first ticket. But by the time I received it, I had several more in the mail. I now owe nearly $3000 in tickets for a one-week period – so far! If they really wanted to reduce driving speeds, they would ticket people *when they speed*!

    • annoyed says:

      I’m annoyed at the fact that these camera vehicles sit down ravelston or rosseau connecting to plessis but not directly on plessis and ticket vehicles going down plessis having their cameras turned sideways. the picture of my vehicle on the paper mailed to me is very grainy.

      This city must be going broke. camera vans that havent increased safet renewed. pst hikes. taking money from assiniboine park and muxh muxh more. I’m scared to see what’s next.

    • staci says:

      Its the new overpass we are paying for!! I got two tickets in one week, if I realized I was speeding the first time and got a ticket then I wouldn’t be speeding two days later. Its a cash grab not a safety enforcement.

      • joe says:

        are you going to speed down that street anymore? probably not, so clearly the enforcement worked.

        Yes, they gave you one extra ticket, but if you have two tickets from the same location a few days apart, the judge and crown will agree to let one go if you plead guilty to the first. it happened to me, and it could happen to you.

    • joe says:

      if they ticketed people when they were speeding, we’d be going broke to pay all the extra police officers.

      Also, when people have multiple tickets from the same location a few days apart, the judge will almost always reduce the fine to the cost of only one ticket. This happened to me and I’ve heard of it happening to others. Plead not guilty to all of them now, then on your court date ask the crown to drop the others if you plead guilty to the first ticket. I’m sure the crown and judge will agree, unless of course you have a record of speeding. good luck.

  41. Andrew says:

    I got a ticket dated May 29 stating that I was doing 71km in a 50 zone at location 3832 (Plessis @ Rosseau) I thought this was insane because I never go that way from Regent, I always turn north onto Plessis from Ravelston and it would be very hard for my car, in such a short distance to hit that speed. Well today I got two more tickets that said I was doing 64 and… 79! Now I know this is not true! How should I fight these 3 tickets?

    • Steve says:

      I also got a ticket June 4 for doing 63km in a 50 zone at the same spot during afternoon rush hour and i’m well aware it’s been there everyday for the last month or so. I make the same turn onto north bound Plessis from Ravelston everyday coming home from work. There’s no way I can accelerate to that speed in such a short distance and you have to take in fact its during a peak period when you have to be extra careful with it only being a 2-way stop for Ravelston cars. I’m pleading not quilty and hoping for the best even though it will be hard to prove where I was coming from.

      • Chris Sweryda says:

        Just remember to be aware of the guilty with an explanation trap. They try and talk you into it so they can skip a court case and especially when the photo radar operator can’t show. If the operator isn’t there and they don’t talk you of changing your plea, they have to drop the ticket.

        • joe says:

          you can ask if the cop/operator is present before you say anything else. why not suggest this to people, Chris? You say yourself that people have a low % of chance to win the court case if the operator/cop shows up. pleading not guilty and losing almost always results in a full fine. the one time i tried your suggestion, thats what happened to me. it’s better to make the court date, attend it and see if the operator is there. if the op shows, plead guilty and pay less.

          if you plead not guilty and lose, you PAY MORE meaning MORE CASH for the city. good work, Chirs.

          • Chris Sweryda says:

            You have no idea what your talking about. If you plead guilty, you admit guilt and only get to give an explanation for why you should have a reduction. If you plead not guilty and loose, you still get to give an explanation for why you should get a reduction so your at the same step at that point. There’s lots that have plead guilty with an explanation hoping for a reduction and didn’t get it and then found out later that there were many reasons why they may have won had they stuck to not guilty.

      • Jason says:

        I’m in the same boat. I take that same turn onto Plessis from Ravelston everyday & there’s no way I got up to 65 in that short of time with my old beater. I’ve timed myself making a similar turn (into a 70km zone to be safe!) and even a heavy foot, it’s just not possible in that short distance with my car.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Plead not guilty to all tickets. Give me a call once you have a court date. 204-801-9239

  42. Sharon Carter says:

    I meant to ask another question. If I can’t clearly see the plate numbers in the picture I got in the mail can I use that in my defense? part of the front letters are obstructed and the last 2 numbers do not look like mine. I know it’s my car and I do travel this route every day and I have a very common car – I know through analysis and deduction of other same vehicles and plate numbers they could deduce it was my car. I am looking for additional ammo to get it thrown out. Thanks!

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      The picture on the ticket doesn’t mean much for court. You’ll only know the quality of their picture once you get the disclosure package for court with the colour pictures.

  43. Sharon Carter says:

    I just received a ticket for location 3832 (Plessis at Rosseau). It said I was doing 65 in a 30..I never go over 59 in It that area and as soon as I notice I drop the speed. It’s always so congested at 4 p.m. after turning onto Plessis north from Regent it’s impossible to go that fast! There are no camera signs or anything around there. I’ve noticed that there is a small non police issue car parked on the corner of the street (Rosseau) with the rear end facing Plessis pretty much every day. He isn’t even parked the legal distance away from the corner. When I go to the Broadway location I will be pleading not guilty. They are sneaking these non police issue cars to do a big money grab. Today a good Samaritan had a homemade sign the street before the “trap” telling all passer bys about the radar set up. My “offense” was on May 31 at 3:55 PM. My mother just received a ticket in the mail today for the same location, and I am pretty sure my son will be getting one in the next few weeks. My son stopped at the car today and even talked to the guy – he said to just plead not guilty. Why isn’t the public being told about these cars being out there? And if they are setting up at the same place, the same time, every day….why isn’t there a photo radar sign up??

  44. tired of tickets says:

    Hey got a ticket today.. Going to plead not guilty…. And take my chances…. Friends told me they have reps that come to court so the officer doesn’t have to….. Is this true?

    As well the ticket says it’s at 100m and the plate vis is questionable.. Is on direalie looks like the first down hill portion going east on the bridge… :-s

  45. Anonymous says:

    I also just got multiple speeding tickets from 3832 location. It says on the ticket that I was going 76km/h and 77km/h on a 50 zone. I can’t believe I was going that fast when I always check my speedo while on Plesis by the school zone area coming from Regent. It is indicated that the mobile photo radar was more than 100m away. I’m not comfortable paying for this ticket and hope to plead not guilty. This is my first speeding tickets and have no idea how the court proceedings works.

    • Paul says:

      I also got tickets from Plessis and Rosseau. I’m a frustrated how the city is delaying signing of tickets to offenders (not even sure how accurate this mobile photo radar are). I got the recent one on my mail then it was followed by multiple tickets from older offences. It’s seems like a scam since they collected the tickets in like a week or so before mailing them. I would have been more careful if the they sent me in the first oldest ticket.

  46. Jason says:

    I am confused, my first speeding ticket going “supposedly” 68km in a 50km zone on Plessis at Rosseau. On the photo in indicates the location as 3832 which i have no idea where that is, but in small print way at the bottom it states the area i was speeding. There is no way I am comfortable paying for a ticket when I was not speeding. What is the reasonable way to fight this?

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      The first thing you need to do is fill out the back of the ticket and indicate that you wish to plead not guilty. Once you get a court date, call me at 801-9239 and we can discuss what happens in court.

  47. Ben says:

    I just got one in the mail just now, where the hell is location 3832! showing on photo.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      That location number should be on the bottom of the photo. There should be a location description in small print on the very bottom of the ticket. I hope your pleading not guilty to that.

      • jn says:

        I received a ticket @ Rousseau and Plessis. Is there any play with the city illegally parking? They are literally hanging their ass just off the sidewalk on teh side street?

        If their parking is deemed illegal, isn’t that the equivalent of a cop holding a lit joint, then coaxing you into taking a puff, then arresting you for using?

        • Chris Sweryda says:

          It never hurts to try. I can’t say how anything will go in court because that location is still too new and I haven’t heard of any tickets that have gone through court yet. I always suggest to plead not guilty. The fine doesn’t increase because court costs are already included in the price of the ticket.

  48. Sam says:

    How many other cars are allowed in my photo enforcement picture before they can’t tell which car was speeding? I got a 73 in a 60 zone along grant west of Kenaston (mobile radar, not light cam) where the speed limit goes up and down several times in a short distance. My point is I was driving at the speed of traffic flow, and to jam on my brakes to match the new posted speed seemed more unsafe than coasting with the speed of traffic. There are three other cars in my radar enforcement photo, all going the same direction. How accurate are those guns that they can differentiate one car from another in a line? Just a degree or two of movement and you are aiming at a different car. Does this mean they all got a ticket, one after the other as fast as the camera could click? This seems unfair, as it can be clearly argued that (aside from failing to observe the useless and annoying posted speed changes) I was not being unsafe at all, not running a red, not tailgating, not even really speeding, as the limit fluctuates just enough to allow them to ticket at strategic locations.
    I heard on the radio just now that the “steep fine” for speeding in construction zones is $5 per km over. That would be wonderful, as my photo radar ticket amounted to over $16 per km over. Now we can see how much they care about construction workers when compared to simply extorting our money at every opportunity. For those who are going to complain that there is a school nearby, I was actually on my way back eastbound from dropping off my daughter at Shaftesbury, past the crosswalk, leaving the school zone, heading towards an open stretch of Grant with a higher speed limit. There are no crosswalks or school signage in the area I was tagged, I legitimately thought I was accelerating (along with everyone else) towards the higher speed zone, they just found the 100m space where you are technically speeding even though it feels like you are driving slow and easy, because the stretch (like many others) is under-zoned.
    Can I get them to throw it out simply because there are so many other cars in the photo, and it is clear that I am not overtaking them nor do I have my brakes on (which would show I was previously travelling faster) I was the end of a line of cars all going the same safe and reasonable speed. The fact that the city posts signs for much lower than safe or reasonable speeds is really the most important factor here. See the article on 85% speed percentile.

    They won’t ticket you for being within 10% margin of error, meaning we should be able to go 66km/hr in a 60 zone and they can’t make it stick in court so they won’t bother. This means they can’t prove I was actually speeding by more than 7km/hr, and $220 for 7km over is absolutely draconian. It wouldn’t be so bad if my money was actually going to the city for infrastructure, but my ticket says “Make cheque payable to the Minister of Finance” this proves it is a one-way cash grab for the province and they use our city tax dollars and resources to enforce the collection of solely provincial-bound extortion money. They are stealing from the City of Winnipeg almost as badly as they are stealing from every one of us. Yes even you uppity, self-righteous Smartcar, Fit and Echo drivers who think you are making the world a better place by driving 5km under the limit all the time and smugly calling it an idiot tax. You are not actually better or safer drivers, just ones who take longer to get places. This provincial gov will get your money too, it just won’t be for speeding.
    They are hard at work as we speak, thinking of more ways to charge you more money to do the same things you do now for free. They even charge us for the right to earn money in the first place, and they charge our employer for the right to hire us, and the taxes are even structured to encourage low wages. Sounds pretty stupid when you think about it like that, but there it is.

    • Sam says:

      I wanted to add that I have a wife and kid, I drive a VW station wagon, and even though our household income is below $45k, over half of our money is lost to taxes, in one form or another. My property tax alone is almost $500 a month and my street was plowed only once last year, and this week they did not pick up my yard waste bags as was scheduled on the city website. Just so people wouldn’t think I’m some right-wing fanatic who drives a sports car like a dick and flips off the cops while running down grandmas at crosswalks. It is imperative that normal citizens stand up for each other and avoid infighting about petty distractions. They want you to paint speeders as reckless hooligans who are probably drinking and driving and who hate your kids and want them to die.
      Most speeders (I’d say 90%) are only speeders on minuscule technicalities, they were not being unsafe, just preyed upon by an increasingly desperate and failed government as an answer to our horrible infrastructure problems.
      If you are having a bad driving experience, it’s not because of the broken cement, badly designed intersections, plethora of stop lights, inadequate arterial roads, constant yet inefficient construction delays and regularly malfunctioning signal lights, no, the reason you are having a bad day is because those evil speeders are out to drive as fast as possible.
      The real reason driving sucks in this city is because our government sucks, and has sucked for a long time. I am laying it square on the Province, they are the ones collecting all the money, even the money we think is going to the city is actually going straight to the province. Proof is the ticket itself, with city of winnipeg letterhead and at the bottom says “cheque payable to the Minister of Finance”. Another example is the gas tax. Straight to general revenues and barely any going to roads.
      I’m moving to Saskatchewan ASAP. I have done the calculations; the gov of Sask. will pay me approx $6000 per year, every single year, to live there, simply in tax savings, even if my income remained the same.

      • Sam says:

        Would I stand a chance of winning the appeal with the arguments I outlined above, or is winning dependent on the officer not showing up? I have yet to go back and check on the signage in the area, they were very vague in their description of the area the ticket was given, I have to compare the picture on the ticket until I get a match with visible landmarks.

        If he shows and they are going to throw the book at me, then I don’t want to bother with the hassle of fighting the ticket. Has anyone won their case when the officer did show up? If so, how did they win?

        • Chris Sweryda says:

          The easiest way to win is for them to not show. When they do show, sometimes the crown makes a mistake and it has to get dropped. I’d say you have about a 10% chance of winning if they do show up and about a 40% chance of getting a reduction in fine if you do loose. Are you sure you were heading westbound and not eastbound? If you were going eastbound, you have a very good argument in regards to the signing. Call me at 204-801-9239 and we can discuss it.

          • Sam says:

            Ticket says “EB Grant Ave East of Shaftesbury Blvd” Location 3805 Range 132m

            Divided section of road shown in ticket pic, very wide grass median with trees along it. There are three other cars in the picture, all are overlapping my car in proximity, visible over my passenger side roof. Together the three cars in the background are also overlapping each other visually, and they take up almost as much area of the pic as my car does. We are far enough apart that they could have snapped each one of us separately, but each pic would have had other cars in it, we are evenly spaced, 30-50 feet apart, the pic is taken looking down the line. At 132m from that angle it would be very easy to get a reading off any one of those cars and it would look like mine, with only a few degrees of deflection needed to hit all four cars at once.

            Ever notice those road-side signs that post your speed are barely ever correct? They are inconsistent at best, and unless you’re the only car on the road, it is very difficult to tell when your number comes up because it is constantly changing as cars drive by it, and it never does line up with your actual speed before you’ve passed it.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      That is clearly one of their newest locations since the dragoncam guns cam out. I suggest signing the back of the ticket and indicate that you wish to plead not guilty. Give me a call when you have a court date and I can answer all of your questions. 204-801-9239

      • Sam says:

        I spent 30 mins this morning in line to get a court date, it is set for march. What’s the difference between not guilty and guilty with reason? Which do I have more chance of winning? They made me decide on the spot and the kicker was if I plead guilty with reason they would see my case immediately, which I did not have time for right then, and was not prepared for anyway.
        I don’t want them to bulldoze me with cookie-cutter arguments and nail it down to the fact that I was over the posted limit. I want to focus on the lack of signage, the immensely large and ill-defined school zone which I was apparently in, and the fact that after accounting for the well-known 10% margin of error on the radar guns I was only going 6km over the posted limit (they say 13 over), however reasonable that limit may be.

        They will try to say that I am only finding excuses for speeding, but I was truly following the flow of traffic (evidenced in my radar ticket pic) and if they weren’t using predatory tactics and hinging on technicalities I would not have been ticketed in the first place. What’s more, if they weren’t so greedy with a $220 fine for 6 km over, I would have just paid it and been more careful next time, but this is unbelievable and is literally highway robbery.

        Heard on the news that a guy in BC was clocked at 280km/hr in a 110 zone and his fine was $400

        13 km over in MB = $220
        170km over in BC = $400

        Thanks Manitoba NDP! They have no excuse for not having any money, they certainly have all of mine, and probably a lot of yours as well.

        • Chris Sweryda says:

          Hi Sam,

          Guilty with an explanation is a trick. When you plead guilty with an explanation, you are admitting to the offence and simply asking for them to reduce the fine by considering your explanation which in many cases, they don’t do. Guilty with an explanation means that you are taking a conviction and are guaranteed a fine. That is why they can see you right then is because they don’t need to prove their case or have a trial. They only hear your reason and possibly reduce the fine. They like to make you think that it is the only way to get a fine reduction, but that is not true.

          Not guilty means that you are not admitting to the offence and are forcing them to prove their case. When you plead not guilty, they have to book a court date for a full trial. Since you are not volunteering guilt, the crown has to bring in the photo radar operator as their witness, submit the testing certificates for the equipment and any other evidence they have against you. They don’t like this because it takes the photo radar operator off the street for two hours and ties up the court system/their ATM. Before the trial, they have to provide disclosure which means they give you all the certificates and information they have related to the offence.

          If the crown fails to prove their case for any number of reasons, the ticket is dismissed. This is not possible with guilty with an explanation, because you have accepted guilt. The crown often looses, if the certificates aren’t filled out properly or they forget to say the offence happened in Winnipeg or any other way that you can create reasonable doubt. The most common cause for dismissal is the photo radar operator doesn’t show up which means they have no case and have to drop the ticket before the trial even starts which happens about 1/3 of the time.

          If everything works out for them and the judge rules against you, you are convicted and face the same fine you already had before going to court. Once convicted, you are now at the same stage of being guilty that you are at when you plead guilty with an explanation. You simply didn’t allow them to skip the process of proving the offence. At the time of the conviction, the judge will ask for any reasons why the fine should be lowered which is when you give the same reasons you would have used if you had plead guilty with an explanation and may possibly get the same reduction you potentially would have had with guilty with an explanation.

          Unlike other provinces, Manitoba includes a court fee in the ticket amount. Other provinces charge you a fee for fighting a ticket if you loose. In Manitoba, they charge you that fee anyways for having had had the right to fight your ticket even if you didn’t. This means that you have nothing to loose by fighting a ticket and it will not be more because you fought it which is why you should never pay a ticket voluntarily.

          Sometimes, after you plead not guilty and before the trial, the crown will contact you and offer a reduction in fine if you plead guilty with an explanation. Although this is not always the case, they most commonly do this if they know they can’t win in court. The most common reason for this is the operator can’t come to court. They hope by offering a deal, you will change your plea to guilty and they won’t have to go to court. In that situation, if you don’t take the deal, they’d have to drop the ticket and you wouldn’t pay anything. In, that situation, it’s up to you if you want to take the deal or risk going to court and the chance that the operator shows and they do make their case.

          I also suggest never going in there to plead not guilty. Fill out the back of the ticket and mail it in. When you go in person, they try and talk you into pleading guilty with an explanation because that frees up the court system and gets them their money.

          Where did you get that ticket?

          • Sam says:

            Thanks for all the encouragement! I got the ticket in the mail, but the location it was taken was Grant Eastbound, East of Shaftesbury. (Also east of the crosswalk, it’s the large open section with wide grass median and no cross-streets. There is a residential access road running parallel which they sit in and shoot the radar through the line of trees which divides the residential access road from Grant Ave. I’ve since noticed their van sitting there, now that I know to look that far off the street for it.

            It is an extremely dubious radar location, and the ticket was issued under extremely dubious circumstances.

          • Sam says:

            And they already failed to talk me into guilty with reason. I asked the difference between guilty with reason or not guilty, her answer was that guilty with reason means they will see me right away, and not guilty means I get a court date (which is intended to sound ominous). She then pointed to the pic on the ticket and said “You are contesting the fact that this is your car going this speed at this location?” with a tone that implied I would be stupid to argue against such blatant logic. I said “Yes, I am not convinced that it is accurate”.

            She actually seemed visibly annoyed by my not guilty plea, as if it actually mattered to her as a person. I was at first offended, and then amused that it is so easy to get inside these gov’t hacks’ heads. They take their crappy jobs so seriously and are so brainwashed they literally become the face of the government and they take pleasure in throwing the book at people. I actually feel sorry for them.

  49. Kim says:

    Are photo radar vehicles permitted to park in parking lots? I recently received a ticket doing 64 in a 50 on Roblin west of Laxdal. I couldn’t for the life of me figure out where the vehicle would have been parked as it was obviously taken from the opposite side of the street and there is no parking there. I figured it out last week when I saw the photo radar car parked in the strip mall parking lot. Now that I know where they park, I noticed him there 3 days in a row last week. Are they permitted to operate from private property….assuming of course that the city doesn’t own the strip mall?

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      It’s one of those grey areas. They’re not supposed to, but it’s not really illegal until the mall tells them they can’t be there. I’d suggest calling the mall and telling them about it. They’re the ones who can tell them not to do that. The police will do essentially the same thing. They will set-up radar traps in private parking lots or even in private driveways, but as soon as the owner tells them to move, they have to leave. To enforce on Tuxedo, the photo radar has been parking facing the wrong direction in a no parking zone. Technically illegal, but who polices the police?

  50. John says:

    Hi there,

    Not sure if this was asked, but is it legal for a photo radar vehicle to set up in the front loop of a school? They are setting up in the at the front angle entrance trying to get traffic across the road as well as the exit angle of the loop for the other side. Received a ticket for the receding side down st.anne’s south of warde. Also there is another car in this picture.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      It’s one of those grey areas where they are not supposed to be there, but it’s up to someone to complain and the school to tell them not to be there. Until then, it’s just like the cops setting up a radar trap in someone’s driveway. Legal until the person tells them to leave. I hope your pleading not guilty to that ticket.

  51. C says:

    I just received a photo radar ticket in the mail, 64 in a 50 at location “Winnipeg, Manitoba”. Do photo radar tickets typically not have an address? In tiny print as part of the photo it says “Location: 3097″. The photo is definitely my car, but is there any way to find out where this actually took place?

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      The last line of the ticket is supposed to say the location in words and not a location code. When you plead not guilty and get your court package, it certainly must be in there or else I can’t see how they can proceed with the ticket.

    • Galy says:

      I also received a photo radar ticket with exactly the same numbers! 64/50 at location: 3097! may be it just standard ticket for everyone? and also i can see the car in front of my car, so how can i be sure if it my fault or their?

  52. Brian says:

    How far away are photo radar allowed to set up from schools and are they allowed to park on a side street to ding you when theres no parking on the main road?

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Hi Brian,

      Photo enforcement must be between the school zone signs. One loop hole that has been deliberately placed in the Highway Traffic Act to benefit photo enforcement is that there is no maximum distance that the signs are allowed to be from the school. That is why you will see such extreme distances. The signs that are at not photo enforced zones are placed a half block from the school (where they are supposed to be), but at photo enforced locations, they are often placed 2-3 blocks from the school for each direction. This creates a very large school zone which is a benefit to photo enforcement. In theory, the city could put a westbound sign on Portage Ave at Main Street and a eastbound sign on Portage at the Perimeter Hwy for the school located near Polo Park. This would make the entirety of Portage Ave a legal photo enforceable school zone. To read about this, take a look at my report on school zones:

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/98484759/Winnipeg-School-Area-Signing-Study#page=62

      Since January, photo enforcement has gotten new hand held guns that allow the units to now park on a side street and enforce on an intersecting road. For more on this see page 5 of our January newsletter:

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/123522543/Wise-Up-Winnipeg-January-2013-Monthly-Newsletter

  53. Jarrett says:

    Has anyone gotten a ticket on Air Force Way?
    I do not doubt that I was driving and it was my vehicle, but I seriously doubt I was doing 64 in a 50.
    To be honest I can’t figure out from the picture where exactly I was. I know for a fact that on the day in question I was turning right onto Air Force Way from Ness. How is it possible for me to accelerate to 64 and still be seen by a camera. Even if I was driving south on AFW I would be turning right or left onto Ness, that would be a scary turn at 64. What KILLS ME is that the ticket is $230!!!
    I’m not saying I’ve never sped in my life, but seriously Winnipeg?!?
    Why is everything in this province SOOO expensive. It would alm. I’ve been in the military for over 15 years and have been posted from Gander, NL to Comox, Vancouver Island and Winnipeg, MB is insane (property tax, school tax, parking violations, utilities). I didn’t move here by choice and I tell you I CAN’T WAIT until I get posted out.

  54. Anonymous says:

    This is my first time here, all I see is poeple complaining of nothing. When is the last time one of you poeple drove for 10 hours north,south,east or west? You let your lives comsumed with Bitching about nothing you can controll. So you have nothing so you Bitch about nothing, wake up you are nothing enjoy your isolated living conditions, if you don’t have an education or anything nice to say………..don’t say anything.

    • Travis says:

      Hey, wise up. I got a ticket for doing 69 over the maryland street bridge which is a 50 km zone. I notice my gauge never went over 60. Is it possible that because I was changing through multiple lanes while accelerating that it caused the radar to show an inaccurate reading. I accelerated from the most right lane to the most left lane.

      • Chris Sweryda says:

        Anything is possible and I suggest you plead not guilty and go to court. You can tell the court your story and possibly get a reduction. That’s assuming the cop shows which half the time, they don’t and the ticket gets thrown before the trial even begins.

    • Sam says:

      If you had an education and confidence in your opinion you would post your name and present a decent argument instead of anonymously posting ignorant, generalized attacks.

  55. Lindsay Langridge says:

    Hi there, I have fallen victim to the Grant/Nathaniel radar ticket for doing 63 in a 50. Clearly inaccurate as I would have turned left off Nathaniel onto Grant and no way I could have reached speeds of 63km/hr in that short of distance. Anyone have any luck fighting these? I am sure not wanting to give the city $221 for something that I didn’t do. Any help would be great!! Thanks all

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Hi Lindsay. That is still before the courts. I suggest getting your not guilty plea in. By the time you have a court date, it should be settled. Even if it doesn’t go in our favor, you still have a good chance of getting your ticket dismissed. It happens quite often for any number of reasons with the most common being that the radar operator doesn’t show for court. Worse case is you loose in court and pay the same fine you have anyways but have the satisfaction of costing them court time, taking the photo radar off the road for a couple of hours and knowing you didn’t just take the abuse from the city.

    • Irina says:

      Same area. Second ticket. Right before to turn left. How is it possible? And I know about the camera and always doing 50 km/h on Grant. :((

      • Chris Sweryda says:

        The radar is not accurate there. There is a perfectly reasonable and understandable explanation as to why. The problem is that it can’t be proven in court because it costs so much money to bring in experts and a lawyer and when that is done (which we did once at a cost of $7,000 paid for by Todd), the province will just drop the ticket before the judge gets a chance to rule. This is how they avoid the truth from coming out while they collect the money from everyone else who can’t spend $7,000 on their defense. Below is a copy of an e-mail I sent to someone else regarding this same location which hopefully will set a few things straight.

        From: csweryda@hotmail.com
        To: ******@outlook.com
        CC: ******@mymts.net
        Subject: RE: Your Comments
        Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:35:07 -0500

        Hello ****,

        I would like to provide you with some information that I hope you fully read before making a final conclusion.

        You are correct that police Doppler radar doesn’t track stationary objects. That being said, incorrect readings result when a motionless object and a moving object both effect the radar beam. As you are probably aware, the radar beam is 5 degrees wide. What is not said is that the boundaries of that 5 degree beam are the point where the energy from the radar drops by 50% so the range of objects that can return readings are also outside of 5 degrees. Even if the 5 degrees was a set boundary with nothing outside of it, the unit on Grant is so far off the road that the beam has greatly widened out by the time it reaches the road. With such a wide beam, the amount of objects that can return readings is greatly increased.

        Doppler radar puts out beams of energy that are absorbed by soft objects such as trees and humans but are reflected by metallic objects. The way the speed is calculated is that one burst of energy is put out (which travels at the speed of light) and then bounces off the target vehicle and returns to the radar unit. The unit knows the distance to the target vehicle by the amount of time it takes that energy to leave and return. This process is immediately repeated a second time and the difference in time that it takes the first wave of energy to return to the unit is compared to the second wave. This difference in time is how the unit determines the change of position of the target vehicle and a speed is calculated.

        Now here’s the part where motionless objects cause problems. This is just one of several possible situations. The first beam may bounce directly off the target vehicle and give a proper distance to the target. If the second beam bounces off the target and then a light pole and returns to the radar unit it has taken longer to return to the unit than if it were a direct reading. The increased travel time for the second wave can give the perception of the target travelling further away from the unit than it actually has and cause a false ticket. The opposite of this situation can cause a lower reading meaning as well as non speeding vehicles getting tickets, speeding vehicles may get off. That is just one example, but the truth is that metallic objects bounce the beams around and return unreliable readings. Cars in the opposing direction are further from the target and give weaker return readings causing less of an issue compared to the light poles and signs that are in the foreground.

        When the police did their trial with the unit, they only ran a vehicle past the radar eight times and one of those eight times, the radar malfunctioned. It recorded a correct speed but the vehicle wasn’t even in the target frame yet. The police got away with it because the speed was still correct, but the vehicle was well outside of the area that the police claim the beam falls within. What appears to must have happened is the first and second wave both bounced off the target and the light pole. In that case two wrongs made a right but if either of those beams had not bounced, the reading would have been high or low depending on which was more direct (first or second). Also, with the vehicle being outside of the target frame, in this exact situation, a false ticket could result if another vehicle were ahead of the one returning the reading. That vehicle would have been in front of the target frame and have appeared to be the one speeding. These issues are why an 88 year old grandmother got tagged for 93 km/h in busy rush hour traffic or a guy on a scooter got tagged for 77 km/h.

        These problems are why the radar manuals say that stationary metallic objects must not fall within the target area of the beam. This is also why in Australia, tickets had to be refunded because of metallic objects being in the way. There aren’t many other cases of this being proven because most jurisdictions don’t dare to use the radar outside of the guidelines of the manuals. This is also why that spot on Grant was tested in 2003 for photo radar and abandoned due to unreliable readings. They only returned in 2011 out of desperation because of declining revenues.

        If the radar is accurate, why would they stay the first ticket once we had made our case? They have never produced their own expert for us to cross examine. They claim to have an expert, but he has never been presented in court. If we make our case, they just stay that one ticket and keep collecting for the rest. The reason we lost the most recent one is because I got tied up in legal procedure and that’s what the case fell down to rather than the substance of our claim. We couldn’t use a lawyer again because we used all the money we had for the first case; the one they dropped.

        I can respond to your second paragraph at a later time if you like. This e-mail has only spoken about the issue of accuracy. Even when the radar is properly used, there are issues with infrastructure that cause speeding. I won’t get into detail, but I suggest looking at my PPT presentation found at:

        http://www.scribd.com/doc/85002064

        Also see:

        http://www.scribd.com/doc/125744844

        Thanks for your e-mail,
        Chris Sweryda
        204-801-9239

        From: ******@outlook.com
        To: csweryda@hotmail.com
        Subject: Your Comments
        Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:07:20 -0500

        Get your facts straight. Police Doppler radar only tracks objects moving towards or away from the radar beam and not light standards,signs,etc…they don’t move by themselves and are ignored by this kind of radar system…so your argument is bogus and the double doppler stuff…come on. If that were the case every ticket issued with another vehicle showing in it going in the opposite direction would be suspect.

        As far as having to be within the area being enforced, I would think that the new laser units are much like the police ones…target specific and as long as they are tracking a car in the zone, why could they not be out of the zone? Say they park outside a school zone…lase the distance to the the school zone sign…say 30 meters and then enforce from 30 meters to wherever they want….80 meters for example. The WPS units show the distance a vehicle is first tracked, the speed and subsequent distances and speeds.

        ****

  56. Andrew says:

    Chris please don’t stop everything you are doing, Winnipeg needs you!!! I stand behind you 110% We need more publicity, we need more awareness, the people of this city need to get angry about something for once.

  57. CV says:

    I have a court date next week for a Grant/Nathaniel ticket. Clearly there is no argument to use in court so I’m hoping the operator will not show.

    If he does show, I really have nothing to back up a not guilty plea. Has anyone had this situation? What did you do if there operator showed up?

  58. Doug says:

    My court date is Monday. I was assessed as speeding East bound on Provencher over the Seine River bridge. The ticket suggested I was going 67 but once I saw the officer and looked at my own speeding gage, I saw that I was doing 62. I appreciate that Provencher is a 50 zone, even though there is virtually no signage, the road is divided and all other similar roads in the vicinity are 60. Clearly this section of Provencher is the safest stretch of road in the area (no schools, no residential, divided road), yet it has the slowest speed limit. What really bugs me is that the driver has no choice to slow down once they move off the bridge because the end of provencher is only another 200 yards. This is hardly a safety issues compared with other surrounding streets. If I was going the same speed on Marian, where the road is not divided and there is plenty of residential and parks nearby, I would not have been ticketed. How is this right? I also understand that Provencher is one of the streets they are looking at to potentially revise the speed limit.

    How can one fight this? Any suggestions would be appreciated.

    Clearly this would not be a speed issue in this area if they added a couple of additional 50 signs. Can I suggest to the judge they use my ticket money to buy a couple of signs?

    Thanks for your feedback.

    Doug

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      I’m happy that you are fighting this. You have a good chance that the cop won’t even show. I suggest not falling for the guilty with an explanation trick. The lack of 50 km/h signing is one of my biggest fights. Right now, the city has been responding by making a point of removing the already few signs that they have. See:
      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2013/02/13/mb-speed-limit-signs-disappear-winnipeg.html

      After you fight your ticket, I suggest contacting the city and your councilor and demanding signs go up on Provencher. Also, if you could get friends and family to do the same, it will help. The only other way of fighting is to join our fight by using warning signs to slow traffic down. If enough people do that, they won’t be able to ignore it.

      • Joe says:

        Please go look at the signage on Provencher. There is more than plenty, they even have those speed readers up in both directions to inform people of their speed. I live in this area. Despite what you think, most people are probably using the signage issue to try and get out of paying their ticket. Having more signage will not reduce speeding to the benefit of citizens, it will only reduce speeding surrounding photo radar locations. This means that if photo radar did not exist, you would not be advocating for better signage. This means that you are in fact pro-speeding, despite telling people to slow down. When was the last time you advocated for better signage near a popular park or busy school that wasn’t set up with a photo radar vehicle?

        This is why you have not gained any mass popular support from Winnipeg, unfortunately.

        • Chris Sweryda says:

          You really need to do a little more research before you speak; but I do hope this response will enlighten you a little. Most people are not using the signage issue to get out of tickets; they really were tricked.

          To give you the best example, look at the camera at Grant and Wilton. It was the highest producing speed camera in the city. The speed reduction sign before the camera did not comply with signing standards because it was mounted too high. When our efforts were successful at getting the sign lowered, speeding violations dropped by 74%. The proves how many people were getting tricked by signage. If the signs were put on both sides of the road as is done in every other city, violations would drop even further. See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/125744844

          The claim you make that we only fight because of photo radar is as far off as it can be. I have been fighting to get the 206 missing school zone signs replaced across the city most of which are at locations that lack photo radar. I will admit that the media sometimes makes us appear to only be fighting against tickets, but that is because much of our work regarding safety and not enforcement has gone unreported by them. If I only cared about enforcement, I wouldn’t have written an 83 page report on school zones in Winnipeg with only one part out of nine covering enforcement. This report has taken two years to make. What similar work have you done to promote safety? See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/98484759

          To answer your question, the last time I fought for signage at a location lacking enforcement would be last week. See: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2013/02/13/mb-speed-limit-signs-disappear-winnipeg.html

          • Joe says:

            I don’t claim to know more than you about the signage in the city, nor am I suggesting that there is enough signage or no problems with the signage. There should be more and the city removing signage is ridiculous, obviously. As for Grant at Wilton, some of that 74% is due to media attention raising awareness, no doubt. Still, that is noticeably less speeding. I wonder though why so many people speed up as soon as they pass through that light camera at Wilton and get nabbed at Grant and Nathaniel. You may have some statistics on this, but how come speeding at the Grant at Nathaniel remains high even though Wilton is only a few blocks east of Nathaniel? Do we need to put signs up on every block? Please don’t try to convince me that the equipment is faulty or that those poles get in the way or interfere with the signal. I know you think that the courts are avoiding a precedent so they keep staying the charges, but there doesn’t seem to be any convincing evidence showing that the radar vehicle at this location is ticketing drivers with incorrect speed readings.

            I think signage is a problem, but Winnipeg’s worse problem is a driving problem. How many pedestrians, cyclists, and safe drivers were subject to being struck by a vehicle in the last year alone? Speeding may not have caused these accidents, but i think you would agree that if both the vehicles that caused the accidents as well as the ones that didn’t had been traveling slower, say by 10km/h, the damage and deaths would have been less. The signage will only reduce speeding so far and will not raise up safety to an acceptable level for most people. Why not advocate for reducing the speed limit down to 40 km/h or even 35 km/h in residential areas? 60km/h zones down to 50? 80km/h down to 60?

            Maybe you’ll convince me otherwise, but I have a hard time believing that MOST people out there who get radar tickets have been ‘tricked’. Most people should know that most city streets are 50 or 60 regardless of the width of the street or the presence of a median, and when you take your driver’s education class, you are informed of the law which states that the speed limit is 50 unless otherwise posted. So if you’re not sure of the signage, go 50. This seems really easy to me, and I’ve never got a ticket myself. In the locations where the speed is lowered, I agree 100% that the signage is inadequate. One warning sign and one new speed sign on one side of the street is unacceptable signage when the speed is lowered on the same street.

            I stand corrected about your pro-speeding stance. You’re correct in saying that the media doesn’t cover your other work.

            • Chris Sweryda says:

              I know for a fact that the radar at Grant and Nathaniel is inaccurate. They tested that location in 2003 and had to abandon it due to improper readings. Only in 2011 when revenue was down did they return. I have seen some of the tickets from there and believe the people. I do not believe an 86 year old grandmother was doing 92 km/h through rush hour traffic. It simply isn’t possible. I have also met the radar experts who have given the full explanation of why the radar is inaccurate due to the double doppler effect. This was all demonstrated in court after a $15,000 trial at which point they stayed the charge just before the judge was to make a ruling rule. The radar manuals we have have found all say that photo radar cannot be used off the road in that fashion. The crown claims we don’t have the exact manual that they use, but they refuse to supply their manual. The radar was also used in the is fashion in other jurisdictions and was proven inaccurate. Manitoba claims that they don’t recognized decisions from other courts despite the situation being the same and involving the same equipment.

              I don`t necessarily agree that the speed limit has had a major effect on road deaths. I studied all fatal collisions in Winnipeg from 2007-11 and many are caused by traffic that is barely moving. The most common was right turns on red that knock over a pedestrian in an adjacent crosswalk. The point is that vehicles are dangerous regardless of the speed. About 1/3 of fatal collisions were caused by stolen vehicles travelling at high rates of speed. The answer would be to stop the catch and release system of putting car thieves back on the roads.

              Lowering the speed limit below the safe operating speeds can hurt safety more than benefit it. That is well explained in the city’s report regarding the past examination of lowering residential speeds to 40 km/h.

              Most of the best speed traps are caused by poorly signed speed reductions. The 50 unless otherwise posted rule cannot be applied to speed reductions. The biggest trick is that by posting reduction signs on the right only, the faster flowing median traffic often misses the signs due to obstructions from the larger slower moving vehicles in the curb lane. It seems easy to you and me who have never gotten a ticket because we know what the speeds are and where they change. A large amount of tickets go to people from other areas of the city who do not know the road they are on and rely on signing. You wouldn’t believe how many tickets are to rental cars from people visiting Winnipeg.

              I would also suggest that the tickets on Grant have little to do with media coverage. The sign height was in the media in Feb 2011 and the Grant and Nathaniel happened in Dec 2011. All that coverage had no effect on the tickets which were actually higher in 2011 than 2010. The first term of 2012 was also normal and the ticket counts didn’t plummet until after the sign was lowered in May 2012.

          • Joe says:

            Winnipeg lowered its auto theft rate by around 80% with a wide variety of measures, not just by applying a tough on crime agenda, did it not? The catch and release is part of the problem, but not THE ONLY problem regarding theft.

            You contradicted yourself slightly in your last message. You said about 1/3 of fatal collisions were due to auto thieves traveling at high speed. You are choosing to blame the thieves and not the speed so that the information fits your argument. The thieves are ultimately at fault for speeding, but it was the speeding vehicle that caused the deaths.

            I know there is evidence for higher speeds being safer, however, as far as I know, this is largely studied along highways and freeways separated from cities, not next to schools and parks in residential areas. You will never convince the majority of the public that a higher speed through a school zone is safer than a slower one. A speeding vehicle is an intrusion into the lives of people who inhabit the surrounding neighbourhoods. It raises the fear and stress in people who are in their homes, front yards, or in the parks. People who are not inside a vehicle, but on the sidewalks and in the parks, are of equal value to the ones in them. Their safety is at risk as well. All this talk of increasing speed limits reeks of automobile owner superiority complex.

            Just my opinion.

            Anyway, nice talking to you.

            • Chris Sweryda says:

              The thieves are the problem; not the speed they were going. People who travel at high rates of speed are not going to be influenced by higher or lower limits. For a road like Grant, somebody who kills someone going 120 km/h isn’t going to change their behavior if the limit is 50 vs. 60 km/h.

              The roads that are being reviewed for increased limits are not residential. They are major regional truck routes and in most cases divided.

              As far the the limit next to schools goes, 30 km/h school zones are not complied with 77% of the time in Saskatoon and as high as 89% as found by an Edmonton study. Edmonton also does not have reduced speeds next to schools and has 15% less collisions compared to Calgary which has 30 km/h school zones.

              Edmonton removed school zone speed reductions because, “motorists did not adhere to the lower speed limit. Instead, they provided children and parents with a false sense of security”-City of Edmonton.

              “Comparison of collision history with the City of Calgary also verifies that 30 km/h school zones do not result in lower collision rates for child pedestrians”-City of Edmonton report.

              The Alberta Motor Association (Alberta’s version of CAA) researched school zones and found, “that there is no conclusive evidence that school zones result in crash reductions, although they may provide an increased perception of safety in the community”

              Edmonton Police Service stated that, “Although the designation of a particular area around a school may appear to offer increased safety for pedestrians and other users of the highway, the reality is quite different. Our experience to date centers mainly around congestion and the problems associated with low speed and poor traffic flow.”

              In regards to a possibility of reduced speeds during a 2005 review,Edmonton Police stated, “Traffic problems around schools create a significant demand for service…Our hands are full just dealing with the violations currently being encountered. Implementing reduced speed zones around schools will create an expectation that they will be enforced. At this time we simply do not have anywhere near the resources needed to accomplish this. Police officers would have to be diverted from other much higher priority enforcement location to do the work. Locations associated to high collisions and fatalities will receive reduced levels of attention.”

    • Joe says:

      Virtually no signage? Going eastbound on Provencher after coming off the bridge (which is 50 max due to no posted speed limit, not 60), you have about 4 huge blocks before the park, which is plenty of room to slow down. The area is a residential area with a lot of houses, and it is littered with parks and schools and has a lot of signage? Coming eastbound, you will see a photo enforcement sign, then a 50 max sign, then two playground signs. All of them are on both sides in both directions.

      Please refrain from making up information to suit your own excuse for speeding past a park and school.

      • Chris Sweryda says:

        You need to go take a look at Provencher, because your description is extremely off. Going eastbound after coming off the Seine River Bridge, you hit Archibald immediately. The bridge you are describing is the Red River Bridge. Even if you were referring to the correct bridge and the correct enforcement location, your signing description is still off. The Max 50 sign is not posted on both sides of the road because unlike every other city, Winnipeg never posts speed limit signs on both sides of the road; but does for every other sign. The photo enforcement signs used to be on both sides of the road but the city removed the median signs in 2009 in an effort to raise revenues after 657 illegal construction zone tickets were thrown out of court. You are right for 1 our 3; the playground zone signs are on both sides.

        Also note that the max 50 sign that you are referring to is posted 100 ft after the intersection camera at Alneau. That way, the camera gets you just before you have the warning to slow down. Going westbound, traffic comes off of Archibald which is a two lane undivided 60 km/h zone. Provencher at this point is a 6 lane divided road and would very easily appear as a 60 km/h zone. That is why the police ticket at Des Meuron before traffic sees any of the signs that you referenced. The police claim it’s 50 unless otherwise posted (which is technically true), but what is wrong with posting a maximum 50 sign at Archibald because this is a very unusual situation? Also, the city is missing so many speed signs from 60 km/h and higher zones, that they are often indistinguishable from unusual unsigned 50 km/h zones such as Provencher.

        Provencher is not littered with parks and schools. There are no schools and one park which is not the location where he was ticketed anyways. Please refrain from making up information.

        • Joe says:

          I didn’t make anything up, you misunderstood what I was saying. I apologize for not stating clearly, and I am not looking to argue. Let me explain.

          First, as far as I know, the only camera enforcement locations along Provencher are the E/B red light cam at Aulneau, and the two mobile spots beside and across from the park, one WB and one EB. Is that correct? It sounds like Doug was caught by the police even further east at the Seine River Bridge, not by the mobile unit or the red light camera. However, the signage I mentioned is on Provencher for the E/B traffic back at Aulneau, but until you see new signage it is still 50 and if you missed it, it is 50 since there is no signage before or on the Red River Bridge either. I understand that his ticket was not issued at Aulneau. Driving 67, or even 62, reflects a speed limit of 70, higher than Archibald. This is what I was referring to in my post above because the signage is still facing the e/b traffic, so the driver has to go past it prior to arriving at the Seine River Bridge.

          I agree with your complaints about the signage around Archibald, however I don’t see how this is relevant to Doug’s ticket, since he was traveling e/b and not coming off Archibald. It’s a new street and there should be a sign, for sure. However, why are so many people unaware of the fact that turning onto a new street means a new speed limit and until you see it, it’s 50?

          Ultimately, what this comes down to here is that you believe that road size, number of lanes, and the presence of a median is what dictates a driver’s speed in the absence of a sign, whether it is missed by the driver or actually missing. What I’m saying here is that I believe there is really no excuse for speeding, signage or not. Going 67 on Provencher is too fast and most people would agree with that I think. Nobody tricked the driver into going 67 on Provencher, and it is a bit absurd that you are supporting that fight. If he was doing 62, he can get a speedometer test and have the ticket reduced. I just cant see how saying ‘not enough signage’ is an excuse since we all know what the law says. The law doesn’t say: ‘drive according to road size and number of schools in the area’, it says ’50 unless posted’.

          As for schools and parks, it depends on how you look at it. There are no schools directly on Provencher, but there are schools within 3-4 blocks around Provencher. So, Provencher is not a school zone, but it is close to many schools and public spaces and when those students walk home, many will walk to Provencher to catch the bus or cross the street on the way home. There is a school attached to the park along Provencher and one school across the street from it. Around the corner from that school is the school on Des Meurons, and it is less than a block from Provencher. From what I remember, there is/was a school north of Provencher near the river also. The university and hospital are both in the area as well and only a short walk from Provencher. As for parks, there is a park where the Red River Bridge meets Provencher. Then there is Provencher park, Seine River Parkway at the Seine Bridge, and the historic park north of that. These parks are accessible from Provencher. Besides that, there are many green spaces and parks within a short walk of Provencher along the river. Not all of these are designated children’s parks with the ‘playground zone’ signage, but does this mean it is acceptable to speed in these areas? This is undeniably a very public area with a lot of housing lining Provencher as well.

          I did not make anything up, it just depends how you look at it. I never said that there were school zones and other playground zones littering Provencher, did I? No, I said there are schools and parks on it and around it, which you will agree with I’m sure. I’m not looking to argue or challenge you, I just think that you may be placing too much responsibility on the city and simultaneously providing drivers who are legitimately speeding with a convenient excuse.

          • Andrew says:

            Sigh, people like you really just don’t get it…

            I’ve read every one of your posts and you play the blame game quite a bit. What you don’t get is that this movement, everything that Chris Sweryda has been trying to do all comes from a very solid foundation of safety concerns. It has to be about safety because ONE that is just the ethical and moral thing to do, and TWO because this is Winnipeg’s only argument for photo enforcement, and the weakest one.

            The only thing you have really shown yourself to be interested in, is pointing the finger, and who is really at fault. For example: “What I’m saying here is that I believe there is really no excuse for speeding, signage or not.”

            You overstate the obvious, if someone is speeding, sign or not we all know ultimately who’s fault it is, but this kind of thinking does NOTHING to improve the safety on our streets. The kinds of things that Chris is fighting for WILL reduce speeding, THAT IS THE POINT. You remind me of all these people who were commenting on the story of Winnipeg removing all of their 50km/h signs, that just like to go on and on about how there is nothing wrong with it because everyone should know that if there is no sign the speed limit is 50!!! You people are focusing on the wrong damn thing, do you think your argument of people should know this because it was in the drivers handbook they had to read before they took a test to get their driver’s license is going to stand after someone kills a kid!?!? After someone gets in an accident that could have been avoided if they were going 10km/h slower??? Never mind the fact that the city is taking my tax dollars to make the roads less safe by wasting time and money removing speed limit signs, I’ve never heard anything so ridiculous in my life.

            If someone is not familiar with streets in the city and they have been driving on roads that are 60km/h which often have more than a mile in between speed limit signs, and the road changes to 50km/h with no sign, how is the person supposed to know right away that the speed limit is 50, and they aren’t just experiencing a gap in signage?

            Do you read the new iTunes license agreement after every time you update your iTunes??? Maybe it will have something written in there that relinquishes all of your property to Apple after you agree, and then what, I’m just going to stand here and say oh well, you should have read it before you agreed to it??? NO!!! Of course not, because ITS NOT RIGHT!

            Stop being so ridiculous, we all know who is ultimately to blame, but guess what we are all human, and not perfect, and people often do have remorse when they make mistakes. The main goal here, truly is to slow traffic. There are a number of ways to do that, more signs! Make the cars on the sides of the roads actually advertise their presence because guess what, people would SLOW down, and not after the fact, because the way things are now, one of those cars might take a picture of a car killing a pedestrian, seems pretty stupid right? Especially when a little thing like advertising it’s presence could have saved that persons life. THAT is what its about, saving lives! Not prosecuting people after the fact, that won’t bring dead people back to life… AM I GETTING THROUGH TO YOU? This is why other cities invest in traffic calming techniques, because they are actually CONCERNED for its citizens. Things like narrowing roads, putting curves in roads, speed bumps, getting rid of curbs and leveling the road with the sidewalk, these things don’t make money but they DO MAKE ROADS SAFER. Based on your logic our city shouldn’t bother having any speed bumps, because people should know how fast they are allowed to go, am I right? Maybe the city should go around removing all of the speed bumps because they are ‘inconsistent’.

            Who are all of you people who can’t see the obvious flaws in all of this, This is Canada, why is it so hard to think as a collective? Do we not provide social services? Is it so hard to apply the common good to our traffic?

            Please let me know I’m getting through to someone or I might just go insane over here.

            • Chris Sweryda says:

              Some days I just want to tear my hair out, but I do think that with every news piece, there are going to be more and more that get it. No doubt, there will always be those afraid to believe what’s happening but they are a minority. Thank you for your great comment and I appreciate knowing I’m not alone.

  59. kaspurr says:

    Hello and good day everyone. Great site. This is a much needed service. My friend got a photo radar ticket driving my car on the way to the airport to pick us up doing 63 in a 50 heading westbound on Grant Avenue west of Renfrew Street. Planning to plead not guilty. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks. lbirta@yahoo.ca

  60. Stax80 says:

    So got a photo radar ticket in the mail today. I was going East Bound on Meadowood going toward St. Anne’s road, apparently going 64 in a 50. Now what I don’t understand is how. Meadowood Drive is a two way street. The photo radar car was parked on the opposite side of the street but facing in the wrong direction!! Now unless this car has a camera at the back of the car I don’t see how the operator could’ve taken a picture. I guess they’ll do anything to get that money.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      There are three units in the city that shoot out the back end for traffic in the opposite direction. As with all tickets, I recommend you plead not guilty and proceed to trial. You have about a 1/2 chance the operator won’t even show up for court.

      • Joe says:

        2 rear vehicles, not 3, from what I know. The chances of the officers not showing up is a lot less than 50%, as well. But keep telling people that so they go to court and waste their own time and money. Why don’t you tell these people looking for tips how many people win their case when they plead ‘not guilty’ when thy were in fact speeding?

        • Chris Sweryda says:

          Three rear vehicles. Not sure which one your not thinking of. There is the tan one (DNV 152), black Jeep (DNV 141) and silver Jeep (EXR 230).

          The chances of them not showing up for court is very good. It happens quite often. We were trying to defend against signage at one location and didn’t get to trial for four cases in a row because they didn’t show up. Fighting is never a waste of time and money because you have a good chance they don’t show, if they do show you have a good chance of getting a reduction and in the worst case, you cost them court time. It is the best way to fight back against this corrupt and unfair system. The only true way to loose a ticket fight is to just pay it. You may claim these people were in fact speeding, but 90% of the time, there were problems that led to them speeding. The most common problem being improper speed reduction signage. I suggest reading our newsletter to read about the corruption in the system. See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/123522543

          I also suggest following the links to my other documents which all contain a large amount of information.

  61. gotscrued says:

    easy to spot em in winter, idling, clean car, asleep or reading paper in back seat. Cash grab n helping global warming..I wonder if they turn off the cars in wintertime in a school zone??? Hard to sleep in a cold car…Honk everytime I go bye or give cdn salute!

  62. Carlin Lemon says:

    Here is an excerpt from an article in the Metro detailing areas being considered and their respective dates:

    “A breakdown of streets under consideration for speed limit increases in Winnipeg:

    On November 27/12 the Board will be hearing the following streets:
    Dugald Road, between a point 400 metres east and west of Plessis Road; Grant Avenue, between Kenaston Boulevard and Stafford Street; Pembina Highway, between Ducharme Avenue and the bridge crossing the La Salle River (also under consideration is increasing the speed zone from 60 km/h to 80 km/h between rue des Trappistes to south of Turnbull Drive and increase the 90 km/h to 100 km/h between Turnbull Drive and the City limit); Waverley Street, between Taylor Avenue and Grant Avenue.

    On December 4, 2012 the Board will be hearing the following streets:
    Corydon Avenue, between Kelvin Boulevard and Cambridge Street; Roblin Boulevard, between Haney Street and Wexford Street; University Crescent, between Chancellor Matheson Road and Pembina Highway.

    On December 11, 2012 the Board will be hearing the following streets:
    Broadway, between Osborne Street and Main Street; Memorial Boulevard/Colony Street/Balmoral Street, between Broadway and Qu’Appelle Avenue; Isabel Street/Salter Street, between William Avenue and Stella Avenue; Main Street, between Assiniboine Avenue and Manitoba Avenue; Inkster Boulevard, between Lansdowne Avenue and Main Street; Moray Street, between Portage Avenue and Ness Avenue; Wellington Avenue, between the east limit of James Armstrong Richardson International Airport and St. James Street.

    Additional streets not yet advertised:
    Kenaston Boulevard; Taylor Avenue; Provencher Boulevard.”

  63. Carlin Lemon says:

    First of all I’d like to commend this site and it’s operators for finally giving a voice to all the frustrated motorists out there. This city will continue to take more and more if they know they can get away with it, which is why we need to speak up.

    There are public meetings I’ve been made aware of regarding the review of increasing speed limits in numerous areas around the city by the Highway Traffic Board. The meetings are to be held on Nov 27, Dec 4, and Dec 11, but I am unsure as to their location. I’m particularly interested in attending the Nov 27th meeting as it pertains to the Pembina Highway stretch south of St. Norbert , and Grant Avenue between Kenaston and Stafford.

    Does anyone have any more information? Perhaps the locations could be posted on this site, as it would give members and visitors here a chance to be heard and hopefully make a difference.

  64. Craig says:

    I received a ticket on September 23 at Grant and Nathaniel. Apparently 71 in a 50. I haven’t had a speeding ticket in 5 years and drive down there ALL the time for soccer at the Waverley Soccer Complex. The ticket is an insane $317.

    I’ve submitted a not guilty plea and am waiting for a court date and possible rulings related to this intersection.

    I was westbound and the car was parked on the service road as expected.

    I’m not sure if it’s worth getting one of those traffic ticket experts involved or just wait and see if anything progresses with the validity of radar in question.

    Clearly the controversy exists for a reason, you don’t see this happening for many other intersections.

  65. CB says:

    Here’s an interesting walkthrough of my court appearance process. Just tried to fight my ticket in court that I received at Grant/Nathaniel for going 63 in a 50 zone. Walked into my 2pm court appearance to find a lineup of approximately 20 people waiting to state their plea to a legal official sitting at a desk. There were also 4 police officers sitting in chairs waiting to testify. The officer that gave me my ticket was there, so I was not off the hook. Got through the line by about 2:30 and walked up to the official. He asked for my ticket and evidence, which was largely made up of pictures and documents from the Internet, a letter from an engineer attesting to the inaccuracies of photo radar at that location, and speed calculations based on the maximum manufacturer specified acceleration of my vehicles. All forms of evidence were immediately discounted, as the authors of each needed to testify to their documents in person that day. I was unable to get Ford or the engineer to testify in person that afternoon. Given that I had only budgeted for 1 hour at this court appearance, I asked how long it would take if I pleaded “not guilty” versus pleading “guilty with explanation”. The response was 2-3 hours for “not guilty” and 15 minutes for “guilty with explanation”. Given this and the fact that my evidence was thrown out before I could even appear in front of the judge, my only option was to plead “guilty with explanation”. At 3pm, I appeared before the judge as the 5th person in line. I stated that I had never had a ticket before, that I would not have received a ticket if I was going 1kph slower, and that I tried to keep my speed below 50 but apparently did not. The judge discounted all three explanations and could not take them into consideration. However, he did take the fact that I showed up to the court date into consideration and reduced my ticket to $100.81. I paid the reduced price, and left at 3:15pm. Approximately 25 of the 30 people were still waiting for their appearance in front of the judge when I left.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Interesting how that works. They won’t accept your documents unless the person who wrote them is in the room. I’ve been through the same thing with signed City of Winnipeg documents from requests under the Freedom of Information Act. They state those documents can’t be used unless the city of Winnipeg employee who signed the documents attends court. We all know that will never happen. However, the rules are written to benefit them because the testing certificates for the cameras can’t be argued with and the crown doesn’t have to have to tester in court to testify to their credibility. The entire system is tiered against the motorist.

  66. toni says:

    Everyone stand up or leave this city or province –the corruption is only going to get worse

    people are paid off, deals are made back door — politiciians and friends are making hefty profits

    the city is entrenched in corruption – it is unstoppable

    Todd and Chris are modern day hero’s – where are the councellors and MPs at a time of standing up for what is right and against wrong

    solution –you need numbers and petitions – bring in 5000 people – to settle this – or wait and get more angry people involved

  67. Rob says:

    I will be going to fight a ticket I got while travelling southbound on hwy 75 south of St. Norbert in that 60 km zone. Wondering if there is any data out there that anyone holds to help me argue my case of improper signage. Too high, far away from road and I heard also non reflective. Has anyone fought a ticket from this zone and been successful?

  68. CB says:

    So all the people that live in Winnipeg and license their vehicles based on their second residence/cottage in Ontario will never be ticketed?

  69. Ann says:

    I have lived and driven for 25 years all over the States, Vancouver, Toronto, and Asia. Out of the 25 years, I got 3 speeding tickets which are my own fault because I was in a hurry. But within 3 years of living in Winnipeg, I got 4 speeding tickets. I am not a speeder and was surprised every time I got a ticket here. I bought a condo and thought that I would settle and retire here. But after seeing how City of Winnipeg operates, I am selling my condo and moving out of Winnipeg before the end of next year.

  70. Rolly Doucet says:

    In forty years of driving, I’ve noticed the police (both city and provincial) departments become collection agencies for the government. Example; a few years back, the city of Ottawa, Ontario, a survey was conducted in older, quieter parts of the city. These neighbourhoods are populated mostly with older, wealthy retirees who aren’ concerned about the traffic volumes we see today. The questions asked were as such. Do barking dogs bother you? Noise from aircraft? Commercial vehicles on your street? etc etc, and finally “would cars speeding on your street bother you?” Of course the answer to that one was “yes”. So based on that survey, which was nothing more than loaded questions, the city purchased a quantity of vehicles and hired more traffic enforcement people. When questioned about the expense of this scheme, city halls’ answer was “not to worry, these vehicles are intended for REVENUE GENERATING service”
    I was raised thinking that the police were to “serve and protect, not hassle and collect”. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not for speeding or dangerous driving of any kind, but the ticketing mentallity today has little to do with safety.

  71. Dspar80 says:

    Hey, I got a speeding ticket on grant @ nathaniel, where the photo car is on the service road and said I was going 64 in a 50 zone which I was not! I plead not guilty and my court date is oct. 29 I was wondering what I can do to convince the court I didn’t do it?

    • Chris Mcewan says:

      I had the same thing happen. Got my 246$ picture in the mail I’m also wondering what I can do I know I wasn’t going 65km

      How can this car be accurate at such a distance?
      Why is it placed here? The purpose is to slow down traffic in the area not for enrichment so why is this car here? On a service road mind you.

      I though they were supposed to only have these cars in school zones and construction

      • Chris Sweryda says:

        The zone on Grant is being enforced as a school zone due to the proximity of Grant Park High School. There is an empty lot between the school and Grant which was used in court, but the judge refused to follow the Highway Traffic Act and ruled that the city can ticket where they please. The zone on Henderson and Knowles was already deemed and illegal zone, but they continue to enforce it against a judges ruling. Most people don’t know this and pay their tickets which is what the city counts on. If your willing, call me at 204-801-9239 to discuss the Grant ticket.

        • Chris Mcewan says:

          Hey Chris just got my court date april 8th 9am
          On further inspection there is a vehicle just ahead of me in the other lane beside my vehicle and takes up 20% of the enlarges photo of my plate. I know I was not travelling 65 km/h the other photo shows a hydro pole dead centre over my car as well as a hydrant just ahead of that. The women at 373 broadway said there are sensors in the road and that its impossible for the photo radar to be wrong…. let me break that down a photo radar (key word radar = beam of energy waiting to be interrupted and calculated, that is easily interefered with) in her mind means there are road sensors much like the ones at intersections for light priority. I find this very hard to believe.

          Question by calling you are you a service?
          or just a wiseup guy trying to help everyone here?

          look forward to your reply

          -Chris McEwan

          • Chris Sweryda says:

            If your plate is obstructed, it would be a good defense on its own. I know that if the judge can’t read the plate number from the pictures, it will get the ticket dismissed. Yours sounds like a typical accuracy case since it is in part the poles that are causing the inaccurate readings. The woman at 373 Broadway is dead wrong. There are no sensors in the road and it is only based on the radar beam. I agree that she must be thinking of the sensors which are for traffic signal actuation and have nothing to do with radar.

            I’m just a WUW person trying to help this fight against a corrupt city. I think we should wait until after March 1 before we do anything for your trial once we know the outcome of our upcoming case. If we’re successful, your ticket shouldn’t even go to trial.

  72. Clint says:

    Next, is the crooked games they play at MPI

  73. Paul Phangureh says:

    I do not have much concern about the red light cameras as I do not speed and do not run the red lights. What DOES concern me is the “Right Lane Must Turn Right” sign on McPhilips and Inkster. This is definitely an improper sign for a major intersection. This lane should have an overhead sign indicating this is a turning lane. Such as the one at Notre Dame and McPhilips. Another improper sign the City should look at is the “Left Lane Ends” sign on Chancellor going west from Pembina. Clearly this lane does not end. Its the other lane that ends. You wont get a ticket for this but its worth 10 points on the road test there.

  74. Anthony says:

    Received a notice Oct 3 for an infraction on Grant West of Nathaniel – 67 in 50. I will not deny going over 50 there up to then, but 67 seems highly unlikely. Also, there is an eastbound vehicle in the picture which is basically in line with my vehicle. Is that factor, in itself, potential for a discrepancy.
    Since then (Oct 3), I have been crawling through there at 50. But today I open the mail to see another ticket for Oct 2 – 66 in a 50.
    Again unlikely it was as high as 66.
    Two questions – 1. Does pleading non-guilty result in any court costs if one is found guilty ?
    2. Is pleading non-guilty, questioning the 66,but admitting to 56 any sort of strategy for a potential reduced fine.
    Thanks

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      There is no cost to pleading not guilty. If you say you were going 56, that is an admission of speeding and they’ll close the case. Stick to not guilty and proceed from there. When you get a court date, e-mail Todd and he’ll tell you what to say in court.

  75. ryan says:

    Im from Alberta and a red light camera flashed at me for going over the speed limit i guess in winnipeg. Will MB send the ticket to Alberta?

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Manitoba does not ticket out of province plates. That is another unfair part of the program (doesn’t hold out of province driver vehicles accountable), but in this case works to your advantage.

  76. Got Scrued says:

    held out long as possible with Grant n Nathaniel, ticket went to collections…harassing phone calls…threats to my credit…paid ticket. . any chance of getting it back?

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Usually once they get their hands on the money, that’s it. If we eventually beat this in court, it’ll be interesting to see what their position is on that.

  77. Jan says:

    Hey, anyone know what happened to my post from Oct. 3 or 4th? It was showing here last evening with a note saying waiting for moderator reply. Today my post and question I asked re should I pay ticket or plead not guilty, is not showing.

  78. Jan says:

    Similar to CB’s post above, I got the first ticket of my life at Grant/Nathaniel mid-Sept.. I turned onto westbound Grant from southbound Nathaniel when the light turned green and camera shot me just after this. Photo enforcement says my vehicle was speeding at 63km/hr in a 50 zone. In the picture they include on my ticket, it shows a service road, lamp post, and fire hydrant all in between the vehicle and the camera. CB above says that the speed limit sign is about four to five meters high on the lamp post well out of the visibility of the road and there is no dual signage for median lane drivers. I question that I would already be doing 63 km when I’d just turned onto Grant from Nathaniel after being stopped for a red light. Do I just pay this ticket or plead not guilty?

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Hi Jan,

      Sorry I didn’t post your original comment right away. There is so much spam on this website that it looks like I accidently missed your comment. Plead not guilty to that ticket and contact Todd (795-5120) or myself (801-9239) when you have a court date which almost certainly won’t be until next year. Always plead not guilty to tickets; you have a good chance of winning simplyy because the operator may not show. CB is correct about Winnipeg not dual signing speed limit signs on the median. That isn’t too relevent to your case because you came off of Nathaniel and not through the speed reduction at Harrow. The biggest problem with your location is radar inaccuracy and that should be before the courts again soon.

  79. Al says:

    I received a ticket from the mobile unit at Grant & Nathaniel recorded on Saturday morning 10:12am May 5, 2012 at 64 km/hr. I initially pleaded not guilty and then received notice of trial date for Sept 5, 2012. I had initially tried to have the case moved to after the Sept 14 date set for the “experts” face-off trial. i was told the crown was prepared proceed on Sept 5 with my case but I could ask the magistrate for a later date and it would be up to the court to grant the delay. I showed up prepared to fight the case with several arguments (picture photo is blocked with 30% of car parked in front and the light standard and other metal objects etc) and the fact that the lack of signage for westbound traffic coming from Stafford St. is basic entrapment by the city. However, the material witness (police officer) did not appear and the ticket was stayed.
    I was lucky, as not everyone can take the time to appear to defend themselves, but I was not prepared to let an unjust ticket go without a fight. My advice to all is plead “not guilty” and get an argument ready, but maybe you might get lucky as well. Surely the city will correct this terrible injustice if enough people take it to the courts and force them to keep providing expensive defences. Keep-up the fight Wise-Up Winnipeg.

  80. James says:

    Hi,

    What’s going on with the court case/challenge regarding Grant and Nathanial? I thought I had been told before it was up again in Sept, and the Crown was bringing in some expert from Europe?

  81. George says:

    I am an expert, retired magr. of Streets and Transportation Department. Before privatization the cost of the total system was far less than it is now, and were no millins of dollars losses. There are technical problems, especially with mobile photo radar units, beside; no straight legal path of evidence presentation from making a photo to the Court, leaving opportunities for foreries. If I knew Mr. Dube’s phone number, I would have phoned you. Get in touch

  82. Mia says:

    Did you recived that ticket Cindy ?
    Their is no way you can get the ticket if you ware
    Not speeding.the person seating in the radar vehicle
    That is observing who is speeding.camra took pic
    Only speeding vehicle.

  83. cindy says:

    I was driving down Grant this morning and know I was travelling 54 in a 50. The car behind me was coming up fast and I then saw the van opposite me on the road flash, meaning photo radar. I have never had a ticket and wonder if it could have been the car behind me? but, it really felt like it was my vehicle they took the photo of. I was half a block or so away from the photo radar and the car coming up which was for sure going 60 or faster was probably another half a block behind me.
    Would it be reasonible to think that they could have made a mistake? isn’t this very high tech equipement? can they just pin it on me anyway? or would they ticket me for 4 km over?
    it seems odd that the photo could have been the car behind me, because although that car was travelling faster it wasn’t close enough , that I think the photo was of that car. it just seemed that I was far enough away that they took a clear photo of my vehicle. coudl the photo be taken that far ahead (let’s estimate a full block but, yet I’m clearly in front?)
    Can I fight this without going to court? it’s ridiculous, I have a digital speedometer and know how fast I was going but, definitely saw the flash, and in fact the arm coming out from the back seat and then the flash. Any ideas?

  84. JHM says:

    I do not speed because I can’t afford a ticket (I’m a single mom) and I believe in keeping the streets safe. I just got my first camera ticket in the mail for $228.25!!!! I’m trying to figure out where it was, and I think it looks like I was coming up Stafford, so perhaps turning from Academy/Maryland onto Staford, as I must have been going home after working late. This was to have happened on Aug. 29, at apparently 6:14 p.m., and there is not a car in sight on the photo, so there is no hope of a witness. As I said, I do not speed but was recorded at driving 64 km/hr in a 50 zone – how do I know their reading is accurate?

    I just can’t afford this, and I don’t know what to do??? Can anyone help me????

    thank you!

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      It should say in small print on the last line of the page where the ticket was issued. Stafford eastbound east of Academy is a common location for them. They usually park there at 5:31 the minute after the rush hour parking restriction ends. Fill out the back of your ticket that you want to plead not guilty and proceed to trial. Contact us once you have a court date. If you have any questions or want to know more about this issue, you can call me at 204-801-9239.

      Chris

  85. CB says:

    Got the first ticket of my life at Grant/Nathaniel mid-August. Been driving every day since photo radar came to Winnipeg. Turned onto westbound Grant from southbound Nathaniel, 1/2 block prior to the camera. Photo enforcement says the vehicle was speeding at 63km/hr in a 50 zone. There is a service road, lamp post, and fire hydrant all in between the vehicle and the camera. The speed limit sign is about four to five meters high on the lamp post well out of the visibility of the road, and there is no dual signage for median lane drivers. That’s just a few of the ways the city is trying to lure people into speeding at this school zone. If I were a kid going to school there, I would be feeling pretty unsafe about that poor signage when crossing the road.

    Pleaded “not guilty” today and have a court appearance set for end of October (two month delay).

  86. nessH says:

    Absolutely your right photo-enforcement program should be maintained in order to see those people not following the rules. Running while on red light and hitting higher speed. No doubt, not a soul likes waiting at red lights. However, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has a fix for that, as experts there are developing a program that will anticipate red lights. It is said that the program works by gathering data about red light intervals and a smartphone application warns drivers of upcoming red lights. I believe it’s a good idea. To conclude, MIT is working on a navigation software that would predict red lights.

  87. Lorne Sinclair says:

    My wife got a photo radar ticket in the Bishop Grandin area in a construction zone about 8:30 on a friday night of the July long weekend.
    Of course there were no contruction workers anywhere to be seen —and none seen for the next 3 days but of course the construction zone speed limit still applies, and of course the photo radar cameras were busy making money. This is a blaitent abuse of a special safety ruling, made to provide a safer working environment for the constuction workers in busy traffic areas.
    The real culprit here is the road construction company. Perhaps we need a number of our P.O.’d drivers to file a class action suit against the construction company and force then to cover their speed zone signs when workers are not present !!!!!
    None of those ticketed drivers on the long weekend were in danger of hurting any road workers. Let’s be fair here.

  88. Walter B says:

    A couple years ago, I got nailed for making a left turn off Logan onto Main Street at 76 km/hr. First of all, I was driving behind a van that was going faster because he was way ahead of me in the photo. Second, my car is level in the photo, which shows I could not have possibly been that fast. I’ve tried taking similar corners to see if I could do it at that speed, but have not made it to 70 km/hr without my car starting to sway. I’ve complained saying it had to be an error, but the magistrate told me those cameras are never wrong. (I guess she didn’t google to find that the same cameras were known for making over 1000 errors in the states.) So, I HAD to pay the ticket. Now, I’ve been trying to fight getting ticketed for going 98 km/hr DURING RUSH HOUR!!!! So then, how fast were the cars going who were passing me?????? Yet the city WILL NOT BUDGE!! I work with computers and digital cameras. I know personally that they DO glitch from time to time especially if something flutters in front of them. However, the city doesn’t care. “Just pay the ticket!” they say. Any error is STRICTLY to be covered AT OUR EXPENSE! Just wondering, when have replaced the maple leaf with a hammer and scythe?

  89. dean says:

    Just lost my Grant and Nathaniel challenge this morning. The judge was quite curt with me and kept the fine at the full amount. They must be getting tired of the challenges and the costs must be starting to add up. I signed up for the class action suit so maybe I will get something back.
    Any ideas when the Doppler radar case will finally go through? It would have help today as I have 2 road signs, 1 street lamp and a fire hydrant in my photo. More than enough to cause a false reading.

  90. AJR says:

    they have been sitting on hyw 75 just south of st norbert often again. more offen then not i pass them at 730 am

  91. Mus says:

    I got a camera-ticket at the intersection of Bairdmore and Pembina Hwy in the south, for going over the speed limit. This intersection has a camera for red light, but I never knew that it can tag for speed as well. I don’t see any comments on this particular intersection nor on red-light camera tagging for speed here. Any experience like this by anyone? any comments? any advice for me … just pay it or …?

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      All cameras also record speed on green. My advice is the same as for every ticket. Plead not guilty and set up a court date. There is always a chance they will reduce or dismiss the ticket. At the worst, it costs you nothing for court, you pay the same fine you already have and cost them court time. If everyone fought their tickets and took court time, this unfair system would have been gone long ago. As soon as they stop making money, the camearas will disappear. It has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with money. Contact me if you have any questions about court.

  92. pissed off says:

    I once posted a sign like that right before the maryland bridge… “Speed trap ahead”
    bet those idiot cops were wondering why they werent getting their quota that day!!!!!

    ps.. ever notice you get more tickets on a sunday than any other day
    … i believe this is because they pay these fucking cops overtime to go collect our hard earned money and they have to make it seem like its worth while!!!

  93. David N. says:

    I received a photo radar ticket taken by the mobile image capturing enforcement system at Grant and Nathaniel, for allegedly going 63 km/hr in a 50 km/hr zone, on March 11, 2012. I know for a fact that I was not exceeding the posted speed limit. I plead not guilty to this charge on April 30, 2012 and a court date was set for me to appear on July 31, 2012. I also entered my name in the class action lawsuit through Merchant Law Group LLP at the following e-mail address…www.merchantlaw.com/classactions/radar.php. This past Friday I received a letter from the Manitoba Provincial Court, dated June 6, 2012, indicating that there was a ‘Stay of Proceedings’ issued by the court for my case. This basically means that my case has been dismissed by the courts without any further action being required on my behalf. There must be a lot of people pleading not guilty to these alleged offences and it looks like the province is beginning to cave under pressure from this issue at this particular location. I wonder how many other people, that have plead ‘not guilty’, are also receiving letters from the Manitoba Provincial Court indicating a ‘Stay of Proceedings’. Thanks to Wise Up Winnipeg on keeping up the pressure on this highly controversial issue, and thwarting a blatant attempt by the City of Winnipeg from ‘picking our pockets’. Keep up the good work Wise Up Winnipeg. Give up City of Winnipeg.

  94. rick says:

    i received a photo radar speeding ticket on Grant and Nataniel on Oct 28, 2011.

    Ignorantly I paid it.

    Now I want my money back.

    Can you please get back to me to advise how I go about joining a class action to retrieve the stolen funds?

  95. Ron L. says:

    While not related to photo radar, I received a ticket for not having functioning daytime running lights here in Winnipeg. I feel this could have been a warning as appose to a ticket at $171. I have had my DRLs fixed this week, this has done nothing
    for building relationships with the WPS. And my sister is with the RCMP, glad she isn’t mixed up with the WPS. Winnipeg is going downhill fast and I’m letting my fellow Canadians know it in my travels.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Sounds like a typical Winnipeg story. I hope you plead not guilty to that and make them go through the whole court process for it. I can give you a story from my girlfriend which is even worse. Her coworker got into a car accident and the front bumber of her car got wrecked. She took the front license plate off the remains of the bumper and put it in the front windshield. She didn’t even make it home and got a ticket for not having the license plate on the front of the vehicle. The cop said just getting into an accident and how long the license plate has been in the window wasn’t an excuse. That one was a $111 ticket. The car was fixed right away but she’s still got that ticket.

  96. Mark H says:

    Its about time they take down the cash grab camera’s. I’m currently being threatened and harassed by the collection agancey that deals with delinquent tickets. How is it that it cannot be proved that I am driving, so my merits are safe, but you can come after me personally, and attack my credit rating and threaten to garnish my bank account and income? Real classy Winnipeg…..real classy.

  97. Cliff Terrio says:

    Here’s a thought, how about just not speeding. Try going even 4-5 km/hr lower than the speed limit. Instead of SPEEDING up to beat the red light, slow down and stop with the amber light. This group here is nothing more than a bunch of lead foot whiners who were busted for speeding. Be grateful it was photo radar, at least you avoid the demerits.

    This issue is not about photo radar being a cash grab, it’s about nailing those who CHOOSE to break the law – God only knows there are enough of you bad drivers out there. You know the posted limits or are at least supposed to, right? You do hold a valid class 5 license or better, so you are supposed to know the laws and rules revolving around it, so what’s the problem?

    Leave earlier, don’t speed and you won’t get ticketed. That’s the way to take away this supposed cash grab and solve the problem.

    Of course, all the Wise Up WInnipeg WHINERS will disagree with me and give what ever excuses they have, so go on, flame away.

    In the mean time, keep getting those speeding tickets, you bad and poor drivers are subsidizing my CHEAPER driver’s license and cheaper automobile insurance, so thank you!

  98. Dean says:

    lowridergold:

    Just got my 66kph at Grant and Nathaniel picture in the mail . I drive down this stretch several times a week and am very diligent about checking my speed. I checked my speed (under 60 kph) saw the van and didn’t think I would be getting a picture. I am very interested in the results of your experiment because there is something fishy about this site.

  99. Anonymous says:

    Hi I was wondering if the city has any plans to put signage on Stafford.

  100. Andrew says:

    Hi, I’m not sure if I got a ticket or not but I just talked to the Winnipeg Police about the speed trap on Stafford near Academy. I’m not sure if I got hit or not, but after I saw it I was really curious what the speed limit was but then noticed that on both directions from Pembina to Stafford there is not one speed limit posted, and I just found out that roads with no signage are automatically 50 zones. But like you said its hard to know if you are on a road with no speed limits posted or just experiencing a gap in signage of the previous speed limit? If I do get a ticket in the mail, what should I do about it? Also you said “It’s also illegal to travel in the right lane at a speed less then the limit so your in the wrong no matter what you do.” according to the police this isn’t true, would you mind telling me where you got this info? Thanks.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Yes, they are right that it is 50 unless otherwise posted, but what they fail to tell you is that that the rule is seriously eroded by the lack of proper signing on higher speed roads. If you went to a city like Saskatoon or Regina, you’ll notice that the speed signing is over very short intervals and if the road is divided, the signs are on the right and median which is something Winnipeg never does for speed signing. In Winnipeg, there are gaps between signs that are often a few km’s long and usually with multiple intersections along the interval. It becomes a guessing game whether you didn’t see a badly placed or missing sign or there is no sign because it’s 50.
      As an indication of how hard it is to tell, the city of Winnipeg workers have recently installed a maximum 60 sign on a street that is supposed to be an unsigned 50. The road looks so much like it should be a 60 that even the city couldn’t tell the difference and now there is just one sign on one direction at one intersection along that road. They obviously thought they were replacing a missing sign rather than being in an unsigned 50 zone and as if that doesn’t confuse people. I’m not going to get into the plenty of issues with speed reductions since it doesn’t affect Standard.
      Even with proper signing, other cities post maximum 50 signs on their major roads as a reminder to people who are used to going faster on that kind of road. Winnipeg, however claims that they do not install “selective” maximum 50 signs that aren’t as speed reductions. In reality, they have 120 signs that contradict this claim. If you can believe it, they don’t sign Stafford leaving Pembina, but they have signed Taylor leaving Pembina which is a much less busy route. Wellington Crescent is also signed down by the river where there are curves that you couldn’t do 50 on anyways.
      If you get a ticket, I suggest fighting it. Try using the while ambiguity of the speed limit and point out that other much less important streets are signed. Point out the gaps in speed signing on other roads which further confuses a driver. You have nothing to lose and you just might get your ticket reduced assuming that it’s not thrown out because the photo radar operator doesn’t show or for any other reason. If more people fought, it would slow down their cash machine greatly. If we can eventually push this to the point it’s not profitable to them anymore, we may actually get proper signing.
      The information about travelling at less than the speed limit is from Autopac and the Highway Traffic Act. I’m sorry if I said “right lane”, that was supposed to be “left lane”. The commonly known rule of the road is “slower traffic keep right” and if you are going slower in the median lane, you can be ticketed for impeding traffic. The police are notorious for not knowing roadway laws. I recently phoned them to ask if your allowed to turn right in the intersection if a right turn channel is provided which you failed to use. They told me to drive as I see safe; obviously because they themselves to not know the answer.

  101. lowridergold says:

    I am curious to know what’s going on with the tickets on grant @ nathaniel I just received one and it is 66 km as well. So I am going to prove this amera right or wrong by video taping speed while driving down grant will wait for camera car to be present and will find out if this is all for nothing. I will post what happens when the test is done I have been driving for 15 years and have been pulled over once for speeding which I was and owned up and this radar car ticket now and I drive all day long as for my job in the city driving everything from cars to pickups and semis and still only 1 official offence. I do believe there is something to prove here and every route I drive during any given day I go threw cameras or mobile enforcement and the only one I get is where everyone else gets one and at the same speed yet. Will post back soon take

  102. Anonymous says:

    Cameras are not the only problem. Last year I was stopped for speeding in the RM of Springfield. I had my cruise control set. A car in front of me slowed down (I was not catching up to it) and pulled to the side. The officer then pulled me over and claimed I was doing 115km/hr. I know for a fact I was not doing this speed. After getting the ticket, I resumed my cruise control and checked my GPS. Both GPS and speedometer show I was doing 95KM/hr (it was a 90 zone, so I guess technically I was speeding).

    I just had my court date. I lost. Go figure… Red light cameras are NOT the only cash grab… and to be honest, I have never received a ticket from one… only from a cop (springfield police… not sure if I trust these small RM departments… no real control in them) saying I was doing 20km faster than I actually was…

  103. Michael says:

    Ok, first of all lets make something clear, YIELD=STOP NOT MERGE if there is oncoming traffic.
    Second I would like to know if anyone can identify a speed limit sign on Mountain between Mcphillips and Main, I just got a ticket saying I was doing 63 in a 50 east of the Mountain and Selkirk Red light camera, I tried doing 60 on that road just now, it seems FAST, there is now way I was doing that speed on that road. If’s funny how the WPS can issue speeding tickets etc but not be required to prove the camera/radar is accurate.

  104. Ray says:

    My wife just recieved a ticket for a high speed at the Grant location. My intent here isn’t to prove that the speed was off (everything is heresay), but I have enough reason to believe it would be worth outfitting our vehicles with GPS data loggers so everything is tracked, so we have a leg to stand on if this happens again. Does anyone know if GPS data (time location and speed) would help if you are fighting the ticket, or has it been done before?

    Thanks for tips either way…

  105. Ryan says:

    The city needs to rethink their signage and speed limits for streets because it makes no sense as it stands right now. For example Ness which is 60km/h is two lanes at some points, has schools on it, and from just after sturgeon to cavalier has houses facing it. Ellice which is 4 lanes and has no houses on it, is only 50km/h. THAT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE AND IS CONFUSING TO DRIVERS ESPECIALLY NEW PEOPLE TO THE CITY. The city needs to totally revamp how they determine what roads have what speed limits. By this example there is no reason why highway 75 south of St Norbert should be 60km/h. It’s 4 lanes, a divided highway, with no houses or schools on it at all. Come on folks can we say cash grab all at once. Lets do it 1…2…3…. CASH GRAB!!!!!!!!!!! Oh yeah when I got my ticket there the cop already had one person pulled over in front of me, and pulled at least two more over behind me. There was one of him so I am not sure how he can write all of the tickets properly, do license checks, and operate the radar properly. Any other time I have seen a cop pull someone over they do it one at a time. Lets all say it again 1…2…3… CASH GRAB!!!!!!!!!!

  106. Mike says:

    To Mr Chris Sweryda and everyone else at wise up Winnipeg
    I think how you are helping Winnipeg with these traffic scams are great. Keep up the great work
    You are making the city a better place to live, unlike the police and the city

  107. Mike says:

    I heard about the city reducing the time on the yellow lights so more people would get ticketed. I also heard about the police and the city working together and taking down traffic signs then setting traps. Either way, they are stealing for taxpayers. And it is wrong. The only way for them to stop is if Winnipeg stands up and fights them.
    Here is a page for people to discuss there problems with the police in Winnipeg
    https://www.facebook.com/WinnipegPoliceState

  108. Mia says:

    Hi
    On grant I know radar location is right.who will fight will lose.
    They say it’s not right.in these days people are fighting on that location in the court
    Radar opraters are wining those cases.
    I got ticket at Logan I was doing 66 but when I recived my ticket was 64.
    I know I was speeding.i paid it I said my self whay I should speed.now I slow down I don’t blame to photo enforcment.every body think in his own way.
    On grant I know the people they are fighting their tickets will lose.
    That teacher get I think 3 tickets.what you gays think she was not speeding.
    I know their radar works fine.

  109. Jesse says:

    Mr. Sweryda,

    It is not ranting if I disagree with you. It is not ranting if I simply say that people who break the law should pay for it, regardless of who they are or how the police catch them. Whether it is photo radar or an actual officer the point is that if you are speeding you are breaking the law and it does not matter if you are a senior or a teenager, if you were going 5 over the limit or if you were going 50 over the limit. All that matters is that you were breaking the law and have been caught doing so. The only reason such things might matter is in determining the sentence the offender gets. A person going 5 over shouldn’t get the same sentence as a person going 50 over obviously.

    I am always ready to defend my position, but I get tired of trying when you continually ignore my points or bring up information that is not relevant. To my knowledge none of the arguments you have presented in court have proven that the Grant and Nathaniel set-up is incorrectly reading vehicle speeds.

    Your other arguments, such as longer yellow times or higher speed limits, may make things better in the future (I can neither confirm or deny this because as I said in a previous post for whatever reason my computer is unable to open any of the documents that you have provided on your website and I have seen no data one way or the other myself), but does not take away from the fact that the people who are going 60 in a 50 zone that should actually be a 60 zone are still breaking the law. Until the speed limit is changed they are breaking the law and unless you are saying that have the speed at 50 is demonstably unjust (i.e. in breach of their Charter rights) there can be no argument in a court of law that they are not guilty of the offence of speeding.

    I am not suggesting that the people who are caught are bad people or that people like Rob Lachance (from the above post) are scoflaws or lead foots, but they are still guilty of speeding and the arguments they are making about not seeing the sign or being confused are more appropriate as an explanation of why they were speeding rather than as a reason that they are not guilty of the charge.

    In any event, that is my last word on the subject because a) you are unlikely to every agree with me or even admit that there is merit to my position, b) I now have less time to spend talking to people who refuse to listen, c) While I was trying to have a meaningful discussion and to understand your arguments, you do not seem to be affording me the same courtesy and d) I’m just tired of you constantly referring to facts that have not been proven or are not relevant to the very simple truth, which is regardless of any thing else if you go over the speed limit you are guilty of speeding whether you agree with the speed limit or not.

    So, I will thank you for at least making me think even if you did not seem to care or give consideration to my own opinions and say good bye as I really do not have time for this anymore. The life of a law student is actually quite busy you see.

    P.S. Joe: I don’t work for the city and never have worked for the city, I have worked at Safeway since I graduated from high school, but never for the city.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Okay, I guess this will be the last word to this converstation since you don’t wish to discuss further, but I will try to address your points. I think your view is too black and white on this. You think somebody breaks the law simply for speeding and have no consideration of the signs that are there to regulate the speeding. Thank god this is not the view of the majority:

      http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/37/3737.asp

      So, if the city put a 100 sign on Bishop Grandin, but still enforced it at 80, everyone is still a speeder? I don’t see how you defend your position, because I haven’t seen any facts presented. All I see is complaining about speeders and opinions that the city has no responsibility to post the signing and other infrastructure that is resonably neccessary (See HTA 77(1)). I’m trying to understand your points, but I’ve posted my research and fact and the only thing you’ve had to say to it is that you don’t want to read anything that isn’t put out by the city. If you can find some hole in my research, that is another issue.
      I don’t see what information I have brought up that isn’t relevent. I know your not going to read it because it probably won’t open on your computer or if it does, you’ll say it has to be official from the city, but here is the most recent press release which I think does have facts in it.

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/84995060/Safer-Streets-Solutions-Release-March-2012

      Now, I have never said that you should speed because the limit is inadequate. In my opinion, many limits are inadequate, but I do not support breaking them for that or any other deliberate reason. My position is that no matter what the limit is, it needs to be properly signed while following necessary standards (See HTA 80).

      Now, about the radar accuracy on Grant, I’m not in a position to comment because that is mostly Todd’s fight so I will let him take that one on. I thought I was giving your agruements proper consideration so I’m sorry if I somehow ignored some of your points. I would also like to hear your take on the facts I have posted. Overall, my position is that the city has an obligation to properly sign the city and properly time amber lights to prevent the crime. Once properly warned, if people still speed and disobey signing, I support enforcement just as much as anybody else.

      I am very willing to meet and can bring printed materials that will not cause a problem opening on your computer if you’d like to have a conversation person to person. I am very open to discussing the issues and I do very much value other opinions on this matter. You are probably a busy person, but I do see you mentioned being a law student. I am at the university almost everyday, so that may be a good meeting place since it won’t be out of your way. My phone number is 801-9239 if you’d like to contact me that way. Again, I’m sorry about any of your facts that I may have overlooked or not given proper credability to.

  110. J C E says:

    Can’t wait for Mia to get a ticket !!! These damn cameras are nothing but a distraction to the driver. When the driver should be focussing on the intersection, or road, they’re busy checking their speedometers, or watching the more than obvious vans on the side of the road, so they may take note of it’s whereabouts. What happened to good old fashioned policing ? Are there sooo many other crimes out there that good old Sam ( can I give you the key to the city ) Katz has to utilize our police force elsewhere ? If this is the case, maybe us Winnipegger’s should consider moving elsewhere. Besides being the murder capital of Canada isn’t what it’s all cracked up to be ! PLEASE for the love of the almighty ( NO ! Not you Sam ) would someone PLEASE pull their heads out of their asses, and figure out a better way to gouge the ” Voting Public !”

  111. Mia says:

    Hi
    Just want to say don’t speed you will not get ticked.
    Their radars are working fine.they do test their radar and camra every 30 min.
    Their is nothing for them if you get ticked or not.
    They do their duty.if their is little bit confusing they don’t issue ticket.their opraters are well trained.they can not issued any ticked untill they are fully traind and licensed from police.you guys are talking their is no reallty.every body knows when he is speeding or not.you guys get ticked now you gays are burning.thats it

  112. Rob Lachance says:

    I got caught today doing 86 in a 60 zone in St Norbert heading South. I’ve only been through there a few times, and don’t live in Wpg. If I knew the limit there, I would have never sped. Anywhere else in Manitoba, the limit would be 80 once you leave an urban area and then 100 a little further out. I saw a 60 sign, and slowed down immediately(realizing my mistake). Then I saw a police cruiser ahead, who pulled me in and ticketed me. I take offence to people generalizing me as a lead foot or scofflaw. If I was, I would have received a ticket at some point during the past 18 years. I was trying to follow the law, I sure wish they’d put a speed limit sign at the bridge on Hwy 75, then us out of town folks could obey the law too.

  113. Chris Neis says:

    Chris Sweryda says:

    “…Maybe if Jesse would come back on you two could have a rant between yourselves and leave knowing about and fighting the real issues up to the rest of us.”

    So we’re all to understand if we don’t support your cause, we’re all ranting. How appropriate.

    Thank goodness there are people who support the enforcement and are willing to stand and debate their interests over yours.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Yes, I consider it ranting when none of you are able or willing to defend your position. I’m getting tired of posting replies to these people who simply just disapear once the facts come out. You can read back to my past replies to these kinds of comments and please by all means say something to challenge my facts. I would love a debate on this topic of unfair enforcement, but everyone of you just backs down and goes away.

      • Chris Mcewan says:

        Ok let’s go then why are they allowed to ticket without proof of who was operating the vehicle?

        Would my guilt need to be proven in court as every other offense is required to identify the operator of the vehicle who has committed the infraction?

        I can tell you right now that this ticketing by automated cameras is unethical and unlawful.

        • Chris Sweryda says:

          No, because they have decided that you are guilty as the owner of the vehicle and not as a driver which is why no driver licence points are taken. I agree that it is wrong and would never stand up to a charger challenge. Until somebody comes who is willing to pay for that, they will continue to get away with this.

  114. FC Haggis says:

    How come it’s only those who continually break the law who complain the loudest? I’ve driven responsibly around Winnipeg for the last 16 years and was stopped for 3 traffic violations that I was fully aware of breaking the law. The annoying thing about your organization is that many of you who complain here have little care for the law that you’ve broken, but feel compelled to fight the fact that you got caught by an automated system that does not discriminate between your arrogance nor your bad driving habits.

    It will be a sad day when you have realized the wasted time and effort and the laws that govern how you drive will remain in place despite all of your attempts. I find it pleasing to know that you’re clogging the traffic courts with your weak arguments of how the law has reprimanded your poor driving habits, for how else would we justify your inane sense of right and wrong? And just because you claim to have a decent driving record does not denote a clean driving record. I can easily see jerks every day on my commute to work who have the same clean driving record but haven’t had the pleasure of being caught.

    Face the facts, automated photo radar tickets catch bad drivers when they least expect it. Why else would they complain so bitterly? If they followed the law, they wouldn’t have a ticket to argue against.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Have you seriously not read any of the content on this site or the comments? Maybe if Jesse would come back on you two could have a rant between yourselves and leave knowing about and fighting the real issues up to the rest of us.

  115. Joe says:

    Are you sure you dont work for the city Jesse? Your style of writing and your stance is very familiar. :)

  116. Joe says:

    Jesse, you missed my point about single mothers, senior citizens, ect getting tickets. if any one breaks the law they should be fined regardless of who they are. I support fining people that break the law. My point is that these people are being tricked into speeding by the city and it is the city’s job to provide propper road signs,ect to remind people what the speed is.
    And I see cops all the time witnessing jay walkers that do nothing. Even after I told the cop to do something, they did nothing. And yes people have complained to the police about the pan handlers many times.
    Let me ask you this Jesse. Why are you so against the city proberly doing their job?
    And why are you against making this city safer?
    Do you call putting a residential housing community on Lagimodiere safe? I sure don’t.
    Once again,
    -Proper planning would reduce accidents.
    -Proper planning would reduce speeders
    -Proper planning would make our city safer
    -Proper planning would save us money in taxes
    -Proper planning would save is money on our MPI rates.
    -Proper planning would make it safer for cyclysts

    ect.

    ect

    That is why I am here. Our infrastructure is a joke, our city’s planning is a joke.
    Also Jesse, I live downtown. How about you? I can tell you that the cops turn a blind eye to so many things.
    After all, according to the police, it is ok for me to jay walk into traffic and harrace moterists for spare change and stand on a blvd for hours at a time, but if your license plate has a spec of dirt on it, you might as well get your credit card out because they are coming for you.

    And you forgot to answer me, why is it that cars are always the targets?

  117. jim says:

    Hi guys

    I was recently picking up a family member from a residential school and pulled behind a city transit bus
    He pulled away, so I pulled up and pulled in behind a city transit official truck(the suv that have sirens on them.
    Then this transit officer gets out and starts taking pictures of me, the car and the plates.
    I get out and ask him what the hell he thinks he’s doing and he tell me”you’re not allowed to park here.
    So I pull away with no further discussion

    When I circle back, I look up a street light, about 15-20 feet and finally see a no stopping sign

    So my questions

    Since the transit official was also parked there isn’t he breaking the law too?

    The sign is easily missed, and not well posted, what’s your opinion(I can email you guys a pic)

    Can I take pictures of mr transit guy and take them to the police to get him ticketed?

    What will the pictures proove? Can I fight this ticket?

    Thanks guys

    Ps, please reply, I’ll likely make some signs and post them in my neighborhood where the puke of specimens always park there dodge trucks)

  118. Joe says:

    Ok now this is the most rediculous thing I have ever seen. How about 4 speed enforcment traps on the same route going the same direction within 1 mile. Yes I have seen it and I have seen it many times.
    Here it is. Academy heading east at Harrow St (Mobile photo radar), 1 block over a stationary pole photo radar, keep going just over the Academy bridge on Cornish St. is a Cop manually enforcing radar, and keep on driving, you will find another stationary pole photo radar. I live and drive in that area and have seen all four many times all at the same time. seriously.
    Pathetic isn’t it?

  119. Joe says:

    As for the Police giving out tickets, if this city was properly signed and properly planned, then we would not need hardly any traffic cops.
    I will add that if Winnipeg through any pan handler in the drunk tank for 5 hours each time they “harraced” people then pan handling would end almost immediatly because 90 percent of them are not poor at all. $500 tax free money can easilly be made pan handling and it has been proven. These people are fraudsters.
    We would not need a prostitude sex abuser program that costs johns a heap of money if the police went after the prostitude instead of the John.
    We would not have any bar fights if we adopted other countries policeys that force bar patrons to pay for damages.
    The whole point of this website is that we do not need speed cameras period. We need a better city to drive in.
    And before anyone disagrees with me, show me a city anywhere in Canada that has several major routes including the trans canada highway all bottle neck into a 1 lane Osbourne street heading toward downtown? See how stupid this city is.

  120. Joe says:

    Raging Bull, Drivers are bad in this city because the city does nothing to bring our city up to par. We have residential zones mixed with commercial zones, mixed with industrial zones, all on the same route that also includes school zones and that route is also a major route through the city that is conjested because it is infested with red lights as our city has no proper express routes because of poor planning. Now with the poor planning, you would think that they city would try to make the best of it but they don’t. Instead of doing what they can to make these multi zoned areas better, they instead have every route made with a preference going to the pedestrians, cyclysts, bus routes, garbage bins, and making each major route a parking lot.
    Because there is so much mixing in these routes you have a mixed style of driving which means that no driver is on the same page. In other cities, people use sidewalks. Scooters and cycling is not allowed on major routes. Parking is not allowed on major routes. I have never seen a city anywhere that let garbage bins take up a lane of traffic other than here in Winnipeg.
    When the cities are planned properly, traffic flows.

  121. Jesse says:

    Joe:
    First, I can say that it should not matter if you are a single mother, a senior or a family in a minivan, people in all situations speed or break laws. Some times it is the big shot Lawyer with the BMW who really should know better other times its the little old lady that got distracted trying to find her way in a new part of the city. EIther way if they are speeding they are guilty and it does not matter what their background is. All the time I hear people complain because someone convicted of a criminal matter got a lighter sentence because they had a bad childhood or have five kids or are seniors and the public gets outraged because they are being given a break because of their circumstances. How is being given a break as a senior citizen any different. I can understand that people can get confused by the singage (though I have never been confused myself) but if you know that the signs in Winnipeg are confusing then you should pay more attention not less and be more cautious. If I was driving in say L.A. which I expect is probably very confusing to people who do not live there I would make sure to watch for signs and to take my time, because I would not want to have a traffic ticket from there.

    As to panhandlers, jay walkers and getting paid “under the table” I can tell you first, that it is not actually illegal in Winnipeg to ask for money (This is covered by By-Law 7700/2000) However, they are not allowed to trap you or impede traffic or to force you to pay money, but like anything else if the police do not see it happening and no one issues a complaint then nothing can be done. I have seen panhandlers in traffic court before and they do get tickets, but they are usually smart enough not to do any of the illegal actions when there are police around.

    Jay walking type offences are covered under the Highway Traffic Act sections 75 and 88(1) to (20). Sections 138 to 144 are the Pedestrian Duties and Rights sections and also cover jay-walking types of offences. Again the issue is that the Police have to see it happen or it has to be reported to them. I have seen people get tickets for this and I know at least one cop who has no problem giving people tickets if they jay walk.

    Being paid under the table is a whole different type of situation. This is covered by the tax act and is a federal government matter. Again there are only a few ways it can be caught, that is if someone reports it or if the government audit the company or the worker or if the police arrange a sting operation, however usually the police need some indication that something is wrong before they can do something like that.

    Lastly, if the panhandler touches you or your car without permission or damages either you could call the police and lay a criminal charge or get them a ticket under the by-law. If they touch you without your permission that is assault even if they do not actually hurt you. In fact even threatening to touch you or attempting to do can be called an assault. As to your vehicle if they damage it or attempt to damage it or cause you to have to spend money to restore it to it’s original condition then it is technically mischief and they could receive a criminal charge.

    Mr. Dube:
    You indicate that the radar is giving false readings but as far as I know you have offered no proof that this is the case. From what I have seen you have information from Victoria, Australia stating that metal objects affect the radar beam but there is no indication in the literature you have provided that the device that is used in Australia is the same or in any way similar to the device used in Winnipeg. I understand that you are planning to bring a former police officer to court who used police radar when he was on the force, however police radar is very different from the radar in the vans and what happens with one cannot be compared to the other. Blackberries and I-Phones are both smart phones but an expert in Blackberries cannot be said to be an expert in I-Phones and the same is true for all electronic devices. In fact, even with police radar the officers must be trained in the specific type that is used (i.e. stalker, Eagle, Genisis etc.) before they can use it to catch speeders because each type is different and has different strengths and weaknesses.

    If you can offer conclusive proof that the radar devices are not working, that is proof that the specific type of radar that ACS uses in Winnipeg will be affected by metal objects then I would agree with you that the tickets should not be given out, however, I have heard nothing to indicate that you have such proof. As law students we are taught to critically examine everything and take nothing at face value. I have had the opportunity to observe police laser set ups and to observe photo radar set ups and I myself could look at a car and point it out as speeding and then have my observations confirmed by the radar or the laser. The police demonstrated that the radar vans were working by testing them against the laser devices and that the radar vans were accurate. I understand that you dispute this demonstration but you have offered no reasonable explanation why you do so. I have met Constable Howes (the officer who gave the demonstration) and I have found him to be an honest and forthright man, willing and ready to answer any and all of my questions and to explain everything, including the physics behind the radar and laser devices. I have no evidence to suggest that he would lie or make stuff up and if you are suggesting that he has I would say that you should prove it rather than using your fall back position which seems to be that this is all a cash grab.

    It is my opinion that anything that reduces speeding, even by a small amount, makes us all safer and if you are speeding and get a ticket, then IT IS NOT A CASH GRAB. A cash grab implies that the government is taking money from you when you have done nothing wrong, however if you were speeding then it is not a cash grab. I respect your position, but I cannot agree with it if you are unable to give me actual proof of your claims or if you continue to fall back on rhetoric like a politician. Finally, it is my understanding that you have not won a single Grant and Nathaniel case since this whole thing started. So, Mr. Dube, I challenge you to change my mind, to prove me wrong, to provide ACTUAL proof rather than outdated reports from AUstralia that have nothing to do with what is happening here in Winnipeg.

    Raging Bull:
    I was unaware until I read the article in the free press last week that the Province received money for the tickets and I thank you for correcting me. Though I still maintain that the Crown Attorneys in traffic court are impartial and are willing to listen if you have an actual argument. They are ethically bound by the law society and the court to present only true facts to the court and they get paid whether they win or lose.

    The “construction” scandal as you call it was due to confusion over the signage, not because people were not speeding. The signs indicated that it was 60 “when passing workers” but there were no workers. It is my understand that the mistake has been corrected and photo radar vans are only allowed to set up when the sign does not contain the words “when passing workers” though that really is a moot point as there is a Supreme Court of Canada case indicating that regardless of what the sign says drivers are required to go 60 in these zones because they have no way of knowing if there are workers or not. So, if you get a ticket from a cop in these zones and you were in fact speeding, you are guilty whether there were workers present or not, no matter what the sign says.

    I agree that having actual cops out there would be great, however, if they add more cops to the traffic division, then people will start asking why they are wasting their time dealing with traffic tickets and not real crimes. Photo radar was introduced to free up the time of police officers so that they could focus on investigating criminal matters like assaults. So, we can either spend more money and add even more police to the force or we can find ways to reduce the number needed by using electronic devices. You also indicate that they should be going after “excessive” speeders. While I agree that those who go 30 or more kilometers over the speed limit need to be stopped, those who consistently go 10 to 15 kilometers over the speed limit no matter where they are, are also a very real problem. Those people think that because they are not going “that fast” they are not really doing anything wrong, however even at 10 kilometers over you can kill someone. The old lady on Jubilee is an example. The truck driver had just started going and was probably only going about 20 kilometers an hour but still he killed someone, it wasn’t his fault but he now has to live with that knowledge.

    Also, Grant and Nathaniel is 400 meters long (1312 feet) and the photo radar van sits closer to Grant and Cambridge than it does to Grant and Nathaniel, so anyone whould have time to get up to speed in that amount of time. Also, your son was driving so I hope you know that you would have needed him to appear in court today and testify as to what happened.

    Final Note: I agree that there are problems here as there are every where else, however again I still maintain that two wrongs do not make a right and just because there are problems with the city planning does not mean that you can break the law. Just because you are a senior or a single mother does not mean that you are allowed to speed and just because you believe that the radar isn’t working does not mean that in truth it is not working. I depend on facts and if you have the facts to prove me wrong then I am willing to admit it. Somehow I doubt that you, Mr. Dube, will ever be willing to admit you are wrong and I feel for all the people that have been mislead by you and have suffered for it. It is my understanding that in most cases if you get several photo radar tickets in a few days the Crown would be willing to stay some of them if you plead guilty to the first one. The Crown’s office does this not because they do not believe that they can prove that you were speeding, but because you would not have had time to correct your behaviour from the first ticket before you received the second ticket. However, on the advice of Mr. Dube many people are pleading not guilty to all of their tickets and are convicted of all of them and then have to pay all of the fines rather than one. That added to the cost to tax payers for the use of the courtroom and paying for the JJP, the Clerk, the Crown and the photo radar operator and we are all out a lot of money that we did not have to be.

    If you, Mr. Dube, had been frank and honest with people instead of spouting rhetoric about how much you hate photo radar, if you had provided proof to the Crown’s office showing that you are right rather than sending everyone to court to be found guilty, then worst case, we would not have to pay for the wasted court time and best case, the Crown’s officer would have reviewed your documentation and seen that you are right and stayed the tickets as they have in other situations and other jurisdictions. If you are truly trying to help these people then you (and they) have nothing to lose by sharing the evidence you say you have with the Crown’s office.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      At this point, I’m not going to waste my time posting any more facts, but I really would like to hear what you have to say in regards to what I’ve already posted. I think you need to really start paying attention and seeing what is actually going on. It is a cash grab. The courts are in favor of the crown and the city is deliberately trying to entrap people. These are facts, not opinion and I think I have already proven it. I’ll give you a few points to refresh:

      -Winnipeg is the only major city that will never dual sign a speed sign (put on the right side and median of a divided road)
      -The city is using school zone signs that are smaller then the required size at many photo radar sites
      -Almost all speed reduction signs that see regular enforcement fail to comply with national standards
      -Winnipeg has taken out advance warning flashers before some traffic lights
      -Winnipeg has the shortest amber times in higher speed zones in the country (yes I have checked other cities)
      -Winnipeg will not put up 50 km/h signs on major streets with photo radar, but will put them on streets that lack enforcement
      -Some speed reduction signs have been knocked over and police enforcement continues while Public Works claim they are too “busy” to replace the signs
      -After claiming that camera warning signs reduced speeding by 67%, the city went on a campaign to remove signing in an effort to increase revenue.

      If you can read my past posts and make some kind of intelligent counter argument, I’ll be happy to carry this debate on. I’m tired of these people who rant about how the it’s all the speeders fault and the city and crown are all trying to make the streets safer and then disappear once I post some facts. I’d be happy if you guys would go away, but you seem to wait a few weeks or so until you think my post has gotten old and then come back with the same crap as if nothing had been said yet.

      And whoever it was that said you didn’t want to read any of my writings, it sounds like your being willfully blind. The city of Winnipeg is not going to write about how corrupt they are; that is my job. If you want to challenge anything I say, that is fine, but the argument that you only want to read what the government writes is just not going to fly.

  122. Raging Bull says:

    Good evening. Just finished reading all the emails. Wow. A lot of people sure do miss the point of all this.
    I will preface this by saying I haves never received a photo radar ticket.
    My son was driving my car on Grant w.b. and was busted (and I use this term loosely) doing 84 in a 50. $482 ticket. In less than 500 feet he accelerated to 84 km/h??? In a Ford Taurus? Not withstanding my skepticism, I have several issues with this ticket.
    How can a vehicle sit on a different road and issue tickets? Drive on Broadway, photo van on Graham = you get ticket???The service road is not Grant, yet the ticket was issued as if he was on Grant. How is this possible?
    Calibration: the radar unit is calibrated using a tuning fork. (I wonder if was the right key.) (C – for cash. Get it?) We can put a man on the moon but they use a $3.00 tuning fork to calibrate the radar. Are there no engineers who see a problem with this?
    How was the radar not affected by the somewhat large light standard in the middle of the picture I was sent? The license plate was almost obscured by the pole and the tree, yet this had no impact on the radar? (yo engineers, feel free to weigh in anytime).
    I could go on, but hey. My court date is 10:00 Feb. 21, 2012. So, sleepy time for me.
    We have the WORST traffic control in North America. 2 guys are responsible for ALL the traffic lights in the city and are 3 years behind in their work. They also have fought for years, along with the unions, to not modernize the lights to digital. 90%+ of the lights in Winnipeg are still analog, and are almost impossible to adjust, and calibrate for traffic flow.
    The signage – still not enough said.
    And, to Jesse, who said the province sees no money from this – not true. 10 – 17 km/h fines are split with the province, with the city getting more. 17km/h and higher the province gets most of it. So yes the province has a very vested interest in this program.
    Oh and btw, my service vehicle, driven by a former employee, was tagged on Bishop in 2007 during the construction, 3 times. No signage, nothing. Anybody remember that scandal?

    I will sum up by saying that I would have preferred an actual cop ticketing my son, if he was speeding, as that would carry more weight. Photo radar serves no purpose as a punishment as there is no repercussions other than monetary fines. Driver licensing costs are not affected, etc. So I say bring back the real speed cops, and really punish the excessive speeders. Only through real traffic enforcement will the situation come under control. And, remove MPI from all driver licensing. Why does a public insurance company have control over driver licensing? Isn’t that part of the Ministry of Transport, or Highways? When and why did they relinquish control to MPI? Have you noticed how bad the drivers are since MPI took over this role??? Oh well, another rant for another day.

    So to all drivers and visitors to this city, I say BEWARE!!! The traffic Nazis are waiting for you. (Has that BillC-30 gone through yet?)

  123. Todd Dube says:

    If Jesse has been paying attention to the widely reported/stated issue at Grant/Nathaniel he would know that the issue is radar unrelaiability at that unique location – not the inadequate speed posting. That translates to the premise that they were not in fact speeding – which is the common-denominator claim by those many hundreds of complainants. That is the significant difference that Jesse does not understand.

  124. Joe says:

    Also Jesse as a lawyer student that you are and you seem like you are going to be a good one, what is your oppinion of a panhandler touching your are, and cleaning your windows without your permission?
    Harracement? Assault? When you tell them “no” and they clean your car anyway, what would you call that?
    The city knows that this is a issue yet does nothing.
    I am just currious on your thoughts Jesse. Perhaps you may have some good insight on this issue.

  125. Joe says:

    Jesse I read your posts and I am happy to have your thoughts here but you are missing a whole lot of the picture.
    I too am not a speeder and do not get tickets mailed to me. I need to ask you this Jesse, have you read my posts?
    And have you ever had coffee in a restaurant where you can look outside the window and watch people get pulled over for speeding? I have watched and I can tell you that the people caught speeding are single mothers, senior citizens, and family’s in minni vans. These are people who are not speeders, but are led to believe that they are doing the speed limit due to unfair practices by the city. The people in the news video and in the paper at Grant and Nathaniel are exact proof of a crowd as I mentioned above. Take a look at the people closely in that video and you will see senior citizens, single mothers, and mature family members that drive minni vans. Are the 700 witnesses mentioned above who did look at their speedometer lying or is there a fault in the photoradar system?
    As a person that does not get tickets, I have seen this type of unfairness many times before where the city stacks the odds against the driver because they do not want to stop the flow of money coming in.
    Now let me reverse the question you asked and through it back at you.
    You said, just because you disagree with the law does not give you a right to break it. Now I ask you, why does the city not enforce the laws already written to make this city safer and why are they always targetting cars?
    It is illegal to pan handle in this city and the police do nothing. It is illegal to jay walk in this city and the police do nothing. It is illegal to make money under the table without claiming it on your income tax and the city does nothing.
    I can tell you that those 3 laws are being broken each and every time a guy stands in the middle of the street stopping traffic at a green light begging and demading moterists to give them money and jay walking from car to car.
    That is not only unsafe, but illegal and a extreme safety issue. It can also be looked at as haracement and can be looked at as assult when they bang on your windshield.
    Now have you ever watched and talked to the panhandlers standing on the blvd doing this? I have. They will tell you that they can make $300-400 dollars in one evening. If you dont believe me, watch them.
    My demands for this city is to fix the problems first. We have major infrastructure problems in this city due to poor planning.
    Cars/Pedestrian collisions can decrease greatly if cops enforce jay walking. We have a problem with joggers and people walking on the road when the sidewalk is in perfect condition.
    Bottom line, is I do not support people speeding, but I think it is pathetic that they city does not want to fix any of the problems that lead up to speeding accidentally.

    We have a job to obey the laws, and the city has a job to do as well. Us obeying the laws does not give the city (or province) any right to find ways to help people break the laws so that they can cash in on ticket revenue. Fix the problems that lead up to speeding and this city will be a much safer place.

  126. Albert Bouma says:

    If the city would make green traffic lights longer and allow more traffic to go thru an intersection, there would be less of a tendency for a driver to speed up to beat the red light. A lot of green light intervals are too short, they only allow 2 or 3 cars to get thru the intersection. If drivers knew that they would not be sitting at a light for 3 or 4 cycles they would be less likely to run red lights.
    The traffic lights should be sycronized to allow for better traffic flow. One car should not be able to stop the flow of several cars so it can cross the road. That car should have to wait for that traffic to cycle thru.
    Instead of this stop and go mentality this city has, it should change and try to create a better traffic flow where ever possible. Doing this would be safer and and also better for the environment, less fuel consumption.
    I have driven in cities in the US that make traffic flow a priority, I find it less stressful, safer, and more enjoyable to drive.

  127. rich says:

    You need to start a Facebook page for this…Searched for it as I was watching CTV news…

  128. Mia says:

    Hi every one
    I bet you redar opreator can not get your actual speed.
    Because the beam is in the angle.if you are going 65 maybe their reading shows
    64.its always in the fever of driver.they get the right speed 1 can be less

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      That is true for police radar, but the issue of photo radar is different because they add to their reading to account for that angle. If the angle is less then they think, they end up adding too much on and then it now works against the motorist.

  129. Jesse says:

    I am not suggesting that the things that you mentioned are not issues, but just because there are problems does not mean that you can break the law. If you have an issue try to fix it in some way that does not involve breaking the law. I have no real problem with your methods Chris, my bigger problem is with Todd and his Grant and NAthaniel kick. If the people driving down Grnat go over 50 then they deserve the ticket. I have driven down that street many times and I have no trouble viewing the 50 km reduction sign nor do I have any trouble seeing the school zone signs in the area. I have never received a speeding ticket in my life and do not plan on ever getting one in the future. Also, by this point after all the media attention, EVERYONE should know that street is 50 km but people are still getting tickets there.
    As to if I’ve ever been in traffic court before I can tell you that I have been there many times, there and criminal court, not because I actually have any matters on the docket but because I like to watch court and as a law student it was very informative. Also, JJP Sandstrom retired and is no longer on the bench, though JJP Klassen is still there.
    I tried to read the articles that you provided me but for whatever reason they wouldn’t open on my computer or the words were all jumbled together. Also, from what I can see they were all produced by you (is that correct?) and I would prefer to have independent sources before I would even consider agreeing with you.
    Lastly, the Crown’s office has NO stake in the fine from traffic tickets as they are a Provincial office and the money from the Photo radar tickets goes back to the city and the Crown does not make anything of of any charge. There are fines in criminal court as well as in traffic court but the money that is collected goes to the courts and then back to the Government. Crown Attorneys are paid whether they get convictions or not and the ones I know are very reasonable and are willing to listne to any accused who talks to them and if you can prove that you are actually not guilty they will drop the charges. In traffic court if you can give the Crown reasons why you deserve a break then they are willing to reduce the fine or give you a reprimand.
    You were wondering where people were getting the idea that you were okay with people going 10-15 km over the speed limit well here it is:
    “Chris Sweryda says:
    January 14, 2012 at 10:25 PM
    ………..This is about showing the issues with Winnipeg infrastructure that are getting people caught into doing 10-15 km/h over the limit and getting fined. I’m not defending people doing 20-30 km/h over the limit or agressive drivers. ”
    This sentence suggests to me that you are saying that those people who are doing 10-15 km over the limit are less culpable than those people who are doing 20 – 30 km over the limit. If that is not what you meant then please clarify your meaning because that is what I took from your comment.
    And then Dube said:
    “Todd Dube says:
    January 14, 2012 at 10:49 PM
    Chris good job responding to these posts. Some of the posters make it obvious that they haven’t seen any of the content or they wouldn’t make comments such as “just pay your tickets” etc. Chris has done a review of City signing practices that will soon be made public which clealry reflects direct correlation between photo enforcement locations and those stretches most deficient in zoning and signing. That is not a coincidence. The massive majority of “speeding” tickets are to good drivers doing 63kph in stretches that should be 60kph to begin with – not 50kph. The “50kph unless otherwise posted” rule is nonsense – there are dozens of speed drops and they aren’t sufficiently posted. It is purely targeted, abusive enforcement that has zero to do with safety. Todd Dube”
    Which also suggests that good drivers are getting tickets and that they shoudln’t have to pay them because they were just a little over the speed limit. Just because your speeding isn’t insane like some other peoples does not mena that you are not guilty. Most people come into court and say things like “I was going with the flow of traffic” or “Everyone speeds” and neither of these are a good excuse.
    IF the camera is malfunctioning and giving tickets to people who are not going fast than 50 on Grnat and Nathaniel, but if they are speeding then they are guilty.
    I am not saying that the City is right, but until they change things, those are the rules and drivers should follow them if they don’t want a ticket.
    P.S. the child porn was just an analogy to try and show you that doing something wrong just because you do not agree with how things are is not right.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      In most cases, I can’t defend doing 20-30 over the limit because there is no way anyone could ever mistaken Corydon or most other streets for a 70 or 80 zone. Of coarse it depends on the area. Doing 10-15 I could see because Corydon looks like it could easily be a 60 zone and with the improper speed reduction at Kelvin, somebody could easily miss the sign and keep going 60. I will not attempt to defend speeds that could be considered reckless with or without any signing.

      The general part under the HTA for speeding is 95(1) which is for disobeying a speed limit. With improper signing, I will defend those people within reason but only up to the point where they could be charged under 95(3) for driving at an unsafe speed. Example; on Kenaston NB, the 80-60 reduction at Taylor and the 60-50 reduction at Grant are both improperly signed under the standards manual. Now I would try and defend somebody that got nailed at Carpathia for doing 60-65 and didn’t see the signing, but not the person who keeps doing 80. With or without signing anybody should see that anything much over 60 is not safe and if somebody does do that I hope the cops are there.

      Aside from speed reductions, I also believe the city has an obligation to take reasonable steps within its power to control speeding before enforcement. Yes, somebody who does more then 50 on Hespeler is breaking the 50 unless otherwise posted rule. However, for about $40-50, the city could easily post a Maximum 50 sign to remind that person and reinforce the law. Even if the person should know the rules, if a sign makes the road safer, it needs to be posted. They do not do it because there is photo radar, but they will post Maximum 50 on streets that don’t have enforcement such as Wellington Crescent or Springfield.

      All other cities across the country post Maximum 50 signs on major roads except Winnipeg. One of the best cities for posting signing is Halifax. If you took a look around there at the signs, you’d get an idea pretty fast how bad Winnipeg is. Speaking of Halifax, they also time their ambers from 4.1 sec in 50 zones up to 5.5 sec in 80 zones while Winnipeg is using 4.0 in all zones from 50-80. Halifax’s amber time for the lowest speed zone (50) is higher then Winnipeg’s timing for all zones including for the highest speed zone (80).

  130. Jesse says:

    I have read the comments made and I can say that I was especially worried by the comments made by Todd Dube and Chris Sweryda regarding giving tickets to “good” people who were only going 10 -15 kph over the limit. Just because you are not going 70 in 50 zone does not mean that you are not guilty pf speeding. If you are going 51 in a 50 zone you could receive a ticket, however the police have decided that they will not give tickets unless you are going at least 10 over the speed limit. Speed limits are the law and if you go over them you are breaking the law no if ands or buts. If you disagree with the law then start a petition, speak to your city councillor etcetera. Breaking the law because you do not agree with it is not okay, that is like a child pornographer saying that child porn laws are wrong and that it is art not a crime and then trying to come to court and say that he isn’t guilty because the law as wrong in the first place. We don’t put up with that and we shouldn’t have to put up with speeders fighting tickets when they were actually speeding.
    Also, Mr. Dube, you have hundreds of people coming to court to fight tickets, you tell them that you have evidence that will prove they were not speeding and then you fail to prepare them for how court works. You come to court yourself without looking up the rules and then try and say “well, I’m not a lawyer” as if that makes everything okay. You have started this group and have presented yourself as an advocate of the people of Winnipeg and if you are serous about this issue your should spend some time making sure you know what you are doing. All the information you need can be found on line in the Canada Evidence Act and it will tell you exactly what you can and cannot do. If you are going to be fighting for our rights I would hope that you would take it seriously and do some research before you came to court.
    If the “Grant and Nathaniel” speeders are actually not speeding where is your proof? from what I have seen you have documents from Australia, a country that uses a different type of radar than we do and a Police Radar expert, except that the Officer is an expert in the radar found in Police cars which is a completely different system from the radar in the vans. If you have real evidence and not documentation that looks like evidence but does not actually apply to the radar systems involved then bring it to the attention of the Crown and they will listen to you. They are not out to get innocent people, most Criminal Lawyers live by the saying “it is better to let 100 guilty people go free than to convict 1 innocent person” and this applies to both criminal cases and traffic cases. If a Crown is willing to drop an assault charge because the witness might be lying, why would you think that they wouldn’t drop the traffic ticket? And before you say it the Crown is employed by the Province, not the City so even if Sam Katz wanted it to be a cash grab, he would have no control over the Crown’s office.
    Lastly, I’m not sure if people are aware but the amount of tax payer money that is spent every time a matter goes to court is significant. You have to pay for the courtroom (electricity, heating) the court clerk, the JJP and the Crown and that is just for the trial date and not all of the work that goes into preparing the file for court. Then the matter appears before the JJP and the accused tells them that they were only going 58 not 66 and they are found guilty because they admitted to speeding or they say they were not looking at their speedometer. Each and every one of these cases should not have proceeded to trial, but the do because you have told people they can win. If you want credibility in the system then maybe you should find someone who can say that they were not speeding that they were looking at their speedometer, that their speedometer was tested and was working properly, someone who actually might have recieved a false ticket, rather than all of these people who say that the tickets were false even though they actually were speeding. Every case that comes to court without an actual defence is a waste of tax payer money, especially since if the accused has more than one ticket then the Crown will be more than willing in most cases to accept a guilty plea to one ticket and to drop the other or if the accused has only one ticket to lower the fine.
    If you are really concerned about doing what is best for the tax paying citizens of Winnipeg then make sure that you are bringing legitimate fights to the courts and not tickets were the accused just doesn’t want to pay for their bad choice.

  131. Tom Wilson says:

    Hi all been reading this forum some of you have good points.
    What you have been tought about the act and statutes you are calling the LAW ,
    Is wrong, when a corporation has imployees that corporation makes acts and statutes for there employees to follow.
    If you want to keep working for that company you have to follow there acts and so statutes.
    And they make the law as to how they can limit there liability to that employee. And keep the insurance and compensation payments that the corporation has to pay.
    Acts and statutes are made by parliament.
    After someone complains They just got past on st annes rd by someone going faster then them.
    A Lack of mind your own bissiness seems to to the real problem .
    The more acts they make the more you will find your freedom taken away!
    Learn what your real rights are and you will find that if you have respect of other people’s property and follow. These simple rules of common law.
    Don’t damage others property,
    Don’t hurt others,
    Don’t use fraud in your contracts.
    We the people tell the government what to do not the other way around.

  132. Tom Wilson says:

    Hi all I don’t want people driving like crazy animals out there.
    And I don’t tell many people what is going on or how to get rid of your tickets.
    I drive a little over. But I don’t need police bothering me for lights or fog on my back windshield,
    Of to stop me for no reason at all.if there is no breach of the peace then there is no cause.
    I I tell that.

  133. Tom Wilson says:

    Hi All my spell checker don’t work all that well.
    If the police stop you and give you a ticket send a notice to the crown,
    Ask them to show evidence that you here acting as a public servant ,
    At the time of the stop.give them 21 days to reply .
    There is more but you have to wake up.
    insurance on your car give them Control over how you use it.it’s part of the contract when you sign the insurance card.
    And if you read the small print it says that your car can be used for public service.
    Everything that you apply for from the government will cost you some right!

  134. Tom Wilson says:

    Hi all just thought I would let you know , that if you are now acting as a public servant when,
    You get any ticket. Then send a notice to the crown and ask them to prove tha you where,
    Acting as one, do your home work.
    The criminal code of Canada is for public servants only.
    Summery conviction court is for public servants only.
    There in no law in that court.
    You are asleep and have been tricked. Look for (dean Clifard) on freemanitobia.ca

  135. Shocker says:

    Chris,

    Why must you post the BS from the others on this site. Why cant this site be like the Cities and the Cops crapola that only supports their opinion. They only spew their version of the “facts” so why dont you do that? You post facts and all the other losers just post $hit.

    Screw em…delete their posts and post what you want.

  136. Derek Rempel says:

    I woke up this morning and left my house with all lights on my car functioning just fine, an officer stopped me for my daytime running lights not working and one high beam not working. 171 dollar ticket. I shortly after went and replaced it cause I guess it went while I was driving? I tried to phone to say I had fixed the problem and they still want to charge me for it? Where’s the rights in that?

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      They don’t want the problem fixed, they want the money. Make sure you plead not guilty and go to court. The cop may not show up, you may get one of the two reasonable judges (Klassen or Sandstrom) and at the least, you cost them court time.

  137. Lawrence says:

    let us demand our money back from the thugs,rise up winnipeg

  138. Lawrence says:

    Please let us stop to be in denial, this is not about our safety money grab period. Just paid $240.00 for the so called 50km zone on Stafford and

  139. shocker says:

    Its not a matter of speeding or not…its a matter of police resources being used to catch people speeding. Sure, they need to dedicate some to people driving crazy. Why dont we go after the crack dealers, prostitutes, gangs, punks, arsonists, shop lifters, grandma beating criminals who make Winnipeg seem like a place to dangerous to live in. I’d like to challenge the people for photo radar tax collection sites to go for a walk down Portage avenue at 11 pm on a Saturday night after a hockey game and see how safe you feel. I lived in Calgary for 4 years and people sped way more there and much higher and I didnt see any increase in accidents. Maybe there was but I didnt notice anything. But they didnt have flashing white lights on cabs or shields behind the drivers and you could walk down town after hockey game and your biggest threat was a Calgary Flames fan spilling a beer on you after finally winning a game. Its just taxation people on middle class, law abiding soccer moms. Nothing more. Anyone who thinks its saving money is just a self righteous fool who likes websites like this because they get people all worked up by taking the oppsoite

  140. lawrence says:

    telling the truth, it is not about the safety of winnipegers, it is thieffery the city stealing from us, for instance they will post 60 km after few blocks it is 50 km just one example. i just got ticket of $240.00 for driving at 65km at the 50km zone on starfford, has anyone saw a 50km speed limit on starfford?

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      The 50 signs are on Wellington Crescent. There’s also one on Taylor WB west of Pembina and a couple at Grant and Nathaniel (after the photo camera). You won’t find a 50 sign on a street with photo radar.

  141. Law abiding denis-Let’s break down your ‘comment’. Quote:

    “why dont you scofflaws..do like other people and obey the law” That’s an appeal to authority,

    “….driving over the speed limit is illeagal” The speed limit not a law but an Act.

    “so if you get caught you pay….” Again an appeal to authority. You’re saying that you should just pay blindly because someone told you to. It does not matter if the authority is correct in the accusation?

    “what makes you idiots think your above the law.” Ad homonym attack. By your simply calling people idiots shows that you haven’t read through the data, you haven’t disproved the data.

    “if some speeder hit your wife mother or child you would be the first to bitch” Appeal to emotion. Also, the shallow term of “bitch” here means to complain. Would the death of a loved one be just an inconvenience in your mind?

    “never mind complaining about how you got caught ….YOU GOT CAUGHT” Details are irrelevant, therefore everyone is guilty because you said so, or the Authority Figure said so? Appeal to authority.

    “grow up..pay the fine” Please paypal me money, I’m an Authority Figure. I’m fining you for not using capitals at the beginning of sentences, you should have learned that in elementary school.

    “then drive the speed limit …like every one else before you kill someone..” Appeal to probability. Your unwarranted assumption that something will happen, because it can happen, fails right there. You can kill anyone driving the speed limit as well.

  142. Joe says:

    The bottom line is this, Winnipeg is the only major city in Manitoba which is a prairie city and has all the space in the world yet Winnipeg streets are CLUSTERED CLUSTERED CLUSTERED! Look at Winnipeg on a map and it is a mess.
    Poor planning is what is making our city unsafe. Even if we drove 30km an hour our city would still be unsafe. In fact , if we all drove 30km an hour, it would make Winnipeg even more dangerous because traffic would be jammed even longer and cars would remain on the road for even longer.
    In 1970 downtown sidewalks were packed with people and Portage avenue had 4 lands to allow traffic flow. 42 years later downtown has no one on the sidewalks and yet one lane was taken away leaving the most bussiest street in the city to go from 4 lanes to 3 so that the imaginary pedestrians can have bigger sidewalks and Portage ave downtown can be used as a parking lot even though it has parkades everywhere. Keep driving, down Portage Ave and you will find that a route that starts in Vancouver will come to a end at Portage and Main.

    Ever compare Minneapolis (which was once a sister city) to Winnipeg? I bet the Minneapolis freeway which is 110km is 15 times safer than any route in Winnipeg. Ask yourself, why is that?
    I can tell you. The reason why it is safer is because it allows traffic flow, it seperates cars from cyclysts, pedestrians, parking, and garbage bins from traffic. WOW! And who said Americans are dumber than Manitobans?
    Am I promoting a freeway in Winnipeg? No. Am I promoting the city to do their jobs to allow better traffic flow? YES!

  143. Joe says:

    It sad that people have no clue what is really going on. Let me help you all.
    This city is OUTDATED and has a OUTDATED TRAFFIC SYSTEM. Because it has a outdated traffic system, many problems happen such as traffic jams and bottle necks to rear end collisions. So as a cop out , the City of Winnipeg, rather than fixing the outdating problems, instead is pointing the fingure at the drivers and telling them to slow down because speeding is the reason why Winnipeg is so dangerous. Well not true at all. On the perimeter and the highways, people drive 100km and hour and the reason why there are little accidents in comparision, is because the highways allow for what is called TRAFFIC FLOW. Winnipeg being an a city with a outdating traffic system refuses to make things better, but would rather take advantage of the drivers who do their best to follow the rules. Why would the city do such a thing? Because it makes them money and fixing the problems does not make the city money therefore the problems just get worse.
    Here are some examples on how problematic Winnipeg is:
    -All bridges in Winnipeg has a red light at each side of the bridge defeating the purpose of the bridge
    -Winnipeg does not zone its city properly causing some roads to be all 3, residential, commercial, and industrial
    -Winnipeg does not build proper service roads where needed therefor, infesting the roadways with red lights bunching cars together.
    -Winnipeg has more red lights per capital than any other city in Canada leaving drivers to travel through Winnipeg and a calculated average speed of 13.5kph.
    -Calgary,Toronto, and Winnipeg have traffic issues but at 4 am when everyone is in bed and the streets are empty, you can fly through Calgary and Toronto and get from one end of the city to the next while in Winnipeg you are still stopping at the red light that was installed for a grocery store that is closed.
    -Winnipeg built The Perimeter Highway that is outside the city that does not help Winnipeg at all.
    -With the exception of Main Street, all major routes in Winnipeg come to a dead end.
    -Many of Winnipegs streets will have one route and many name changes such as Osbourne, Issibel, Salter, Memmorial, which is rediculous. Yes once again Osbourne, Issibel, Salter, Memmorial is the same road.
    -Winnipeg has empty sidewalks for miles upon miles yet cyclists are forced to use the road.
    -Winnipeg is the only city I know where cyclists, pedestrians, parking, buses, garbage bins have more right to the road than cars.
    -Every major route in Winnipeg is a parking lot. Portage Avenue, Main Street, Pembina, Henderson, ect all allow parking taking away a much needed lane which causes accidents. What is rediculous is that there are heaps of places to park on the side streets yet Winnipeg being outdating does not fix this problem. Main Routes like Grant, Osbourne, Ellice, Sargent, Ness, Corydon, ect all turn into one lane because of the allowance of parking on those routes bottle necking traffic and bringing traffic to a bumber to bumber situation increasing rear end collisions.
    -Only in Winnipeg, people will say, “People should stop complaining about Winnipeg traffic. It took me only 30 minutes to get home from work” Those are the people that are unaware of how small Winnipeg really is, and that in the 30 minutes worth of driving, they only really traveled 2.5 km.
    -The Charleswood Bridge was supposed to be built in 1950 but was not completed until 46 years later in 1996.
    -Our city allows new housing developments to be built right beside 90km and 80km streets which defeats the purpose of why those 90km and 80km zones.
    The list goes on and on, yet the cities solution is to ticket senior citizens and struggling single mothers by giving them 280$ tickets for doing 60km in a 50 zone. Pathetic.
    J-walking and Panhanding is extremely unsafe and also against the law and the city does nothing about it.
    The sex trade is also illegal yet the city arrests Johns but never arrests the hookers or pimps that are the source of the illegal racket.

    With my tax dollars I would expect and demand the city to zone our city properly. Sign roadways properly.
    Built proper routes for Cyclists and for petes sake, dont have cyclists drive side by side with cars.
    Built proper infrastructer to handle the traffic demand. And make traffic flow better for all drivers so that MPI can deal with less and less collisions.

    And before you say “not with my tax dollars” understand this…….. that is what your tax dollars are supposed to be spend on. Every other city thinks Winnipeg is a joke and its pretty sad that people in Toronto would rather drive in Toronto than Winnipeg.

    Finally i will close by saying if your one of the people that say “If you dont like Winnipeg then leave” Well my answer to you is this, Why leave and join the thousands upon thousands that have already left? Why not stay, voice my concerns that my tax dollars and freedoms allow me too and help to fix the problem. Of the world stopped complaining, then nothing would ever get fixed. Thank you Wise up Winnipeg.

  144. Todd G says:

    After recieving 2 speeding in a construction zone tickets after 7 pm 2 years ago and a photo radar ticket when I was in second gear doing under 30 i thought i would check this out. My issue is not being above the law it is the law is not clearly defined. I commute on the 75 (pembina) daily. If you are in the inner lane entering or leaving the city there are no signs indicating the speed limit. There is only 60 posted outer lanes and they seem far from the road. If you have semi beside you or a large truck its game over you will not see the sign. It is not uncommon to see a handfull of cars pulled over recieving tickets because the transition from 100 to 60 is not well defined.

    Nothing can be be greater for tourism in this city other than seeing the welcome to Winnipeg sign and a $250 ticket.

    Patrick you had some valid points. However, if the red light cameras( and all other lights) were set up properly with a delay in the amber it would eliminate many of the accidents involved with pedestrians and cyclists. Regardless there are still going to be the handfull of race car drivers attempting to get a trophy after running a red light. I am not perfect there are times when I have slept in pushed the snooze bar one to many times and drove a little faster than i should have in the morning. I have recieved a ticket when I deserved it and just shut up about it and paid it. Not everyone knows the city as well as you might. and does not know to slow down at the tail end of Osbourne. When I drive it is usually looking forward not searching for signs that should be there to begin with and I am not that interested in cycling to find them. Perhaps I should just stay in the right hand lane ? Sorry to hear you have had some bad experiences with cars. Maybe try catching a bus and save cycling for a trail if cars are that much of an issue for you

  145. cathryn says:

    hey i got two tickets at the nathanial and grant… what should i do when i went to go fight another ticket they had told me i got a photo radar ticket so i said i was guilty but i was going 63 and the next day was when the media was all over it.. what should i do???

  146. law abiding denis says:

    why dont you scofflaws..do like other people and obey the law….driving over the speed limit is illeagal so if you get caught you pay….what makes you idiots think your above the law. if some speeder hit your wife mother or child you would be the first to bitchnever mind complaining about how you got caught ….YOU GOT CAUGHT ….grow up..pay the fine ..then drive the speed limit …like every one else before you kill someone..

  147. Patrick says:

    I would like to mention a couple of points.
    First to Vern Tkach Jan 11, 2012 whose son made a $444.00 donation to the city.
    What wasn’t mentioned was that based on that charge the spped being traveled had to be 20-34km over the speed limit and since it was near the upper range of this band I would say closer to 34 over the posted amount or around 90kph. Sorry pay the ticket and stop winning your son was way over the speed limit.

    To Chris Sweryda you say you are concernered “This is about showing the issues with Winnipeg infrastructure that are getting people caught into doing 10-15 km/h over the limit and getting fined” I say tat a big part of the problem is that people like you that think that to speed 10-15 over the posted limit is not a problem.
    If speeds on Hwy 75 were raised to 70 using your logic people like you would routinly travel 80 – 85 and think that is fine.
    I travel around the city and have not had a problem reading the speed signs which give you advanced warning of a speed reduction andf then reduce the speed. So many people drive and are oblivious of what is going on around them. People drive on autopilot and travel the speed of the traffic around them many with no idea as to the speed they are traveling, when lights are about to turn red or cross walks.
    As a runner and cyclist I see over and over again car after car that has time to stop for a cross walk but drives right through even though a car in the next lane and 30 feet in front of them managed to stop without excessive braking.

    Drivers that run reds well after the light has changed to green for me to proceed because they were speeding to make the light. Osbourn and pembina being a very bad location even though there are 2 sets of lights. If you are going through on the tail end of a yellow on the first one then you should be slowing down not speeding up because you can’t make the second one. Unfortunately the city does not have a red light camera located there.
    If the light has a perdestrain light and the stop hand has come up and it is flashing the light is about to change so so down instead of speeding up and save a life and avoid a ticket.

    Also in regards to your rebuttal to “50kph unless otherwise posted” While I can not speak about all road ways in the city lets look at your rebutal example.
    You said “The last speed sign on Pembina SB before the camera at Chevrier is at Jubilee. The next sign isn’t until close to plaza leaving a 2.6 km distance between signs. Should traffic coming off of McGillvray or any other road along there do 50 unless otherwise posted?” The traffic coming up Pembina are traveling 60kph those coming off harrow, stafford or Jubilee are traveling 50 and can increase to 60 at the sign if they do not know the speed. Traffic coming off McGillvray have been reduced to 60 as they approach Pembina and in the absence of another sign can continue at 60kph on Pembina Hwy. All other side streets are 50kph so they could travel at 50 until they see a sign and there would not be a problem. Traffic comming off Bishop Grandin will see the sign right after they turn on to Pembina. So I don’t see what the problem is. If people left 10 minutes earlier then there would be no need to speed.

    As for duel signing while I don not disagree that the city could duel sign. Any speed reduction I have seen has a warnings and then the reduced speed. If you are driving and aware of your surroundings you should see at least one of the 2 signs. If you are oblivious to signs then you are also oblivious to the pedestrian or cyclist that is also out there and that is not right.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      At what point did I say or even imply that I condone or do drive 10-15 km/h over the limit? When I said people are getting tricked into speeding I’m refering to the perfectlyt placed 60 signs followed by speed reductions that are completly out of compliance with traffic standards.

      Your understanding of 50 unless otherwise posted if flawed. You have just stated that it’s okay to turn off of a road with a 60 speed limit and assume the next road also has a 60 speed limit (McGillvray-Pembina). If that’s the case, then you must have a huge problem with the enforcement on Poovencher at Des Meuron since if you came off of Archibald, you came from a 60 zone.

      Now for your claim about the flashing hand and slowing down. That is something they tell you in driving school, but that doesn’t work. First of all, the lights MUsT be timed so that the amber gives enough time for traffic to stop without needing to use the flashing hand. Second of all, many many lights in the city go through a phase where teh hand flashes, goes up solid and then flips back to the walk cycle without the lights changing. What is going on there is coordinated actuation which is too complicated for me to get into here, but it is a reality and is being done to more and more intersections every year. If you need examples, Bishop Grandin at Shorehill, Bishop Grandin at Lake Crest, Bishop Grandin at Seigneurie are three that are very close to each other and in an 80 km/h zone.

      Your answer looks good, but it is WRONG.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      If the city expected everytone to be as great of a driver as you who can see through other vehicles and read signs accross multiple lanes of traffic, then why are curve signs on both sides of the road? You sound like that cop I talked to on Bishop Grandin who eventually had to back down. BTW before you start saying I was caught speeding on Bishop Grandin, I wasn’t, I pulled into the hydro station and talked to them on my own.

  148. Laurie Taite says:

    A question for Chris or Todd or anyone with the knowledge.

    Why are there no speed traps along regular sections of road (ie on Bishop Grandin between 59 and St. Anne), where their is a SERIOUS speeding issue, and NO RADAR CAMERA…??!! I travel part of this road each and every day to work, and the speeds are WAAAAAYYYY over the 80 limit.

    Whats the point of radar vans sitting in a school zone after 16:00 hrs…? Oh ya, I think its that stupid ruling where thats the ONLY places these vans can park, along with construction sites…? Correct me if I’m wrong. Was it the province that dreamed up this demented idea…? They could make all kinds of “honest” ticket cash from REAL cops giving out REAL tickets on the Bishop stretch.

    It confirms what the guys at WiseUp are saying about the cash grab done the easy way…!

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      I’ve never heard of this as being a problem speed area. Usually with all those lights in close proximity, traffic doesn’t ge much of a chance to speed. There is also no convienant place to set-up a full trap. They much rather be between Pembina and Waverley where they can use the hydro station lot to pull people into. Also, you get higher speeds out there because of the lack of lights slowing traffic down.

  149. pasman says:

    My wife received a ticket for turning right on a red? I didn’t even think that was possible. We go thru this intersection 10 times a day. She thought she came to a stop before turning right but the camera says otherwise. The pictures we received with our ticket shows a car turning right on red, which is not illegal at this particular junction, Leila at Sinclair. Any comments or suggestions are welcome.

  150. Todd Dube says:

    Thanks Laurie. Your service has just begun – please spread the truth to others who for some reason ignore stated fact and propagate the myths repeated by the city about safety. There is no safety component to photo enforcement – and the abuses are many.

  151. “We all hate the cameras at intersections . I slam on the binders if that light even thinks of changing to yellow. I could care less if the person following me is ready for my screeching halt, but I am not going thru that light…I sped up once and received a $190 ticket on Kenaston/Corydon. Going 63 in a 50..
    Intersection cameras aside is one thing, but vans parked all day and night in a school zone regardless if school is in or out is ludicrous. Everyone pretty much obeys school zone speed as a rule. I don’t remember the last time a school kid was injured while walking to his school nearby. This is obviously the biggest scam of these cameras. I have seen him at 10pm on Grant during summer holidays.”

    This comment of the Winnipeg Free Press site summarizes my frustration with the cameras. It is turning citizens against the law and that in itself is a grave mistake no government should make.

    They never seem to set up these cameras when the school is in operation either. How strange?

  152. Joe says:

    If you watch the news video of the protest that took place at Grant park school, you will see that everyone of them were protesting their fines or where there to support the protest of the unfair ticketing were middle aged people, mature people, teachers, parents, and single mothers, who were all veteran drivers where the ones all fighting these tickets. Not a single one of them were hotrodders, and rule breakers. They were mature parents and teachers who all had the same story. Some were senior citizens. Now if 700 people all share the same story that all agree that they were not speeding when they went around the corner, and that they were obeying all the rules, then it is hands down a problem with the photo radar.
    In a court of law, the 700 people would be called “witnesses” and you have 700 witnesses all with the same story vs 1 guy in a photo van who’s job is to literally make money for the city. Since I am a honest man, I am going to side with the 700 witnesses and say stop this cash cow now.

  153. Frank Cullinane says:
    January 16 2012

    Worldwide rule makers and rule enforcers fail to cooperate or answer basic queries raised.

    Local councils set speed limits, Road Safety Authority make rules and police enforce the rules.

    Local councillors who do not have to be drivers but must consult before setting a speed limit but consent is not required.

    It is my opinion that we must now deal with the issue of amber traffic lights and speed limits on a worldwide basis.

    The R108 in Ireland is 48 kilometers long with 3 kilometres of one-way 50 km/h and 45 kilometres of 50 and 80 km/h speed limits.

    The speed limit is enforced only on the 3 kilometre section of 50 km/h one-way road without speed limit or camera warning signs.

    The amber traffic light is timed at 3 seconds in all speed limit areas in Ireland including the R108.

    On drivingscorecard.com I posted a video on speed and traffic ights on the R108 but it was mainly ignored.

    I am editing a new video and would like a 30 second video of speed enforcement on the 50 km/h area in Winnepeg.

    This is a bigger issue much deeper rooted than just speed and amber traffic lights.

    In 2004, 5 pedestrians died on the fotpath in Dublin, Ireland when struck by a bus in a 50 km/h area.

    There were 3 investigations into the cause but for legal reasons the result will never be published.

    My investigation discovered that An Garda Siochana (Police in Ireland) allowed a reaction time of 2.2 seconds in this case.

    This conflicts with the .7 seconds reaction outlined by the Highway Code and Rules of the Road.

    The source of the reaction time outlined by An Garda Siochana and the Road Safety Authority is the Transport Research Laboratory.

    Cars are manufactured to a similar standard with acceleration to speed outlined in time.

    Emergency stopping distance from a speed of 50 km/h alone is outlined from Ireland to Australia as 23 to 54 metres.

    Emergecny stopping distances have remained unchanged since first outlined in the Highway Code in 1946 when cars had cable brakes.

    I am ploughing a lone furrow in Ireland but based on the amount of information removed from the web it appears I am winning.

    I recorded on VBOX the time and distance required to perform each driving task including stopping from each km/h.

    I called the result The Drivnig ScoreCard System.

    Would those in charge of road safety demonstrate stopping from 80 km/h in 3 seconds having allowed a reaction time of 2.2 seconds?

    Lets deal with this on a worldwide basis.

    Regards

    Frank Cullinane

    82 Glasnevin Park,

    Dublin 11.

    Ireland

  154. Laurie Taite says:

    Hi again all, I’m back…! I just got through reading/watching a slew of articles from Cris et all, and I have to say I am again humbled…!! I did not realize what a blabbermouth I was until now. Those drivers that get my goat are peanuts compared to the BS being tossed out by City Hall AND the WPS. As much as I admire the force with all the crap they have to deal with on a daily basis, I cannot fathom why they would pass the buck on some very “pointed” questions from Mr. Sweryda.

    I think I have been “reborn” as it were. I know, I know, I sound like a turncoat to my own cause, but after all the stuff I read, I can honestly say I was shootin my mouth off before I new all the facts. Oh well, never too old to learn something new…right…? The fact is ALL of the info that Chris drew up is miles ahead of ANYTHING the City of Winnipeg has put out to show it’s side of the “Safety” issue that is behind the photo radar scam. I can’t believe Im saying all this…!! But hey, I got my eyes opened and my ears burned and now I have a much greater appreciation for the FACTS as presented by Chris.

    Have I missed appologizing to anyone…?

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Thank you. I will admit though that there are many inconsiderate and ignorant drivers out there. They tick me off to and in no way am I defending those people. There is no excuss for excessive speed, deliberately running lights or agressive driving in general and I will never try to defend those kind of people. Thanks again for reading my articles. People may not believe me on this but I will say that I have never recieved a traffic ticket in my 8 years of driving on almost a daily basis. That includes photo enforcement.

  155. Laurie Taite says:

    Well, I sure got put in my place by slavenewworld…! I’m not generalizing that ALL are being idiot drivers. I confess to being short tempered with the louts that are the main cause. Slavenewworld’s comments at me were very well written and have definatetively gobsmacked me…! I humbly bow to the intelligent rebuttal to my rants. I alone cannot remove nor even FINE the culprits that get my hackles up. I guess I am just so amazed at the amount of drivers that run yellows, especially in turning lanes when you are trying to clear the intersection. Maybe there IS some adjustments that are sorely needed in this town. I am in NO WAY taking sides nor agreeing with the twits(oops, there I go “generalizing” again), at City Hall or the Province on road traffic issues. From here on in, I shall refrain from calling anyone out, knocking down the drivers I don’t know OR their particular circumstances in relation to the radar camera issue. I know myself quite well at this age, and my hostility towards ignorant drivers has no boundaries sometimes…MANY times actually. And for this I again appologize to all involved in this forum and present debate.

    I wish I could say that this problem will be fixed. I see City Hall as a VERY stubborn bunch that likes sneaky ways to get free cash, and will fight tooth and nail to keep the phto system in place. I HAVE received a photo radar ticket twice since the system came in. One was my own damn fault, the other was “kind of” questionable aas to “when” camera went off, so I am aware of the issues.

    I think I just picked the wrong forum to lash out at stupid drivers. The work done here by Cris and Mark is above reproach IMHO. I think I should just shut the hell up and let cooler heads prevail on this matter.

  156. Laurie, should we just agree that we should all ride the bus, or maybe have sensors in the road that remote govern our vehicles to adhere to speed limits? I can guarantee within a day of that scenario happening, there would be a whole new act drawn up on pedestrian traffic laws and all the revenue generation means roaring to go. Maybe tickets for excessively worn shoes?
    How far should we let it slide? Until Big Brother is in your single room living space? Perhaps we could all be assigned our own Personal Violations Officer complete with ticket dispenser to follow us throughout our day to hand us Daily Violation Fines. Where should it end?

    As Chris stated, there are 68 speed drops that fail to comply with standards. By your logic though, WE should shut up and pay up follow the laws, while 68 locations in violation may exist without correction?

    It is human to err, and we all can only walk on water when it’s frozen. Your preaching to everyone to shut up and stop making excuses is your accepting a corrupt system that is also targeting you as well. You’re verbally lashing out at everyone in such a violent matter that it obliterates your ability to review the data that indicates there may be something wrong with this system. Why is it wrong to suggest that the system is failing according to the data presented? Can it be possible that people may have noticed there is something wrong? Why should they be shouted down and called ‘panty wasted whiners’? That’s a lot of hostility there, too much for a commenter on a site trying to raise awareness that there may be possible corruption in a system. You’re not reasonably and logically making your argument, but simply alienating the group from yourself by lashing at everyone with social disapproval attacks.

    You should stay away from the juvenile ad homonym attacks(re “You make monkeys look like Einsteins”. Really?), don’t generalize people as all being scam artists trying to avoid paying fines(you don’t know them personally nor their incidents), until you’ve done conclusive research into the claims and the data.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Thank you for that response. If anyone doubts there are really 68 speed recuctions in Winnipeg that don’t meet standards, I know because I’ve measured all of them. Here are my results:

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/72975833/Speed-Reduction-Signing-Chart

      Conclusions:
      The followign conclusions were made regarding speed limit signs at speed reductions.
      Minimum Height: 2.0m Winniepg was as low as 0.7m
      Maximum Height: 3.0m Winnipeg was as high as 4.8m
      Maximum Distance off road: 3.0m Winnipeg was as far off as 11.0m
      Minumum distance between speed drop ahead and speed sign: 100m Winnipeg was as low as 46m
      Maximum distance between speed drop ahead and speed sign: 250m Winnipeg was as high as 347m
      21 speed signs at reductions were missing and have been missing for more then 3 years.
      Not a single City of Winnipeg speed reduction was dual signed on both sides of a divided road.
      All speed reductions signed by the highways dept were dual signed.

      As shown by the chart, most of the sites that have the worst signing are the most heavily enforced. It’s not a coincidence. By improperly signing before photo radar sites and because photo radar is only allowed in school and playground zones, the city has in reality improperly signed before children’s areas.

  157. Laurie Taite says:

    Chris & Todd, fair enough on those cases, but I would be interested to know what was going on BEFORE the photo cameras came in…? What were the amber times then…? Do you have stats on speeders from the city…? Why do we always have to have visual notification of what speed you are supposed to be doing…? I thought that the driver’s exam and course taught you that if no signs are around you do 50. I find it interesting how many people must get in their cars and drive to their destinations without EVER glancing at their gauges, because I see so many drivers in the thick of a heavy snowfall, rain or dark overcast day, and NO REAR LI\GHTS ON…! If they are not interested in beimg seen, they sure aren’t interested in how fast they are going. I totally agree with the ice covered road scenerio, BUT, I question wether a longer amber will cause people to slow down and OBEY the meaning of a amber light. I see it as just a LONGER green for most lead foots in this town.

    This is a GREAT debate I must say. I have some very WEIRD opinions on it from nurses for example where I work. The discussions we have at work sometimes are right outa William Shatner’s “Weird…or What…!!!!

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      To answer your first question, before the cameras came in, the traffic division of the police was about twice the size and the issues of unfair enforcement in areas with poor signing was around then as well. From what I’ve heard from people, this city’s addiction to traffic ticket revenue dates back to 1994.

      The amber timing used to be variable. I have the signal timing sheets that prove the amber light at Grant/Pembina was 4.5 seconds before the camera got put in and then was changed to 4.0 after the camera. The city has figuraed out what I’m doing with the timing sheets so it doesn’t look like I’m going to be getting anymore of them. The city is currently justifying using 4.0 second ambers in 80 zones because the province of Manitoba (MIT) uses that timeing at all of their intersections. The fact I’ve confrimed with MIT is that all of their signals in 80 km/h zones have advance warning flashers on approaches to warn people that the light is changing and that is basically an extended amber. The city refuses to use advance warning flashers in their 80 zones but still uses the shorter amber. Cameras in 80 zones issue 979 tickets per camera per year and cameras in 50-70 zones issue 164 tickets per camera per year. Unless all of our city’s red light runners only drive in the 80 zones, there is obviously and engineering problem.

      I do not have statistics on how many speeding violations were in the city before the cameras. I didn’t even live in the city until 2005 and have only been involved in this since 2009. The arguement of how the city did it in the past is no indication of how we should be doing things into the future. If there wasn’t a problem with how we have been doing things, then we never would have needed the cameras to begin with. I’ve already indicated the to the city that there is no engineering manual in existence that discourages dual signing for speed limits and every other major Canadian city already dual signs. The city is now using the arguement that they won’t dual sign because it’s not their practice and it’s not their practice because it wasn’t their practice in the past. Sounds like the same logic coming out here.

      The 50 unless otherwise posted is a good arguement on the surface. In reality, there are many roads where signs are missing but they have a speed higher then 60. The last speed sign on Pembina SB before the camera at Chevrier is at Jubilee. The next sign isn’t until close to plaza leaving a 2.6 km distance between signs. Should traffic coming off of McGillvray or any other road along there do 50 unless otherwise posted? If the higher speed zones would be properly signed, it would make the unposted 50 zones more noticable. Right now, with the lack of signing, Pembina looks no different then Provencher. We still should have 50 signs to remind people on the roads that appear like they should have a higher speed limit. The city has 110 selective 50 km/h signs that are used to give this reminder. The problem is that they don’t put them on the major roads with cameras. Why would Wellington Crescent have 50 km/h signs and Corydon doesn’t? Corydon is a major divided truck route but it also happens to have lots of photo radar so no signs.

      To make my arguement solid, I also want to bring up speed reductions. Many many photo enforcement sites are on divided roads right after a speed reduction. The 50 unless otherwise posted rule never applies to speed reductions because they are on roads already posted at a higher speed. With such poor signing on roads like Pembina, you can’t even expect somebody who hasn’t seen the reduction to notice the lack of signs and realize they have entered an unsigned 50 km/h stretch. Every other major city dual signs its speed reductions for this reason. They also often dual sign in problem areas. Edmonton’s policy is to dual sign all roads with 3 or more lanes. That means that Pembina hwy, Portage Ave and Main street would all have the 60 signs dual signed due to the high lane counts. In reality, not even the speed reductions on Portage Ave and Main Street are dual signed for 4 lanes of through traffic. It’s impossible for median traffic to have a clear line of sight across 3 lanes of traffic. If the city truely believes that these sightlines are not obstructed and that traffic in the median lane can see through other vehicles, then why do we have dual signed curve signs, truck route signs, median ends signs, guide signs; every other sign in the traffic manual. Entrampment is the only explanation.

      Whether or not a longer amber will help people will not be known until we try it. With the thousands of people running lights as it is, it’s obvious that what we’re doing isn’t working so what is there to loose other then ticket revenues? Why would Winnipeg be such an anomaly that the engineering standards accepted and used all across Canada and the US wouldn’t work here? If anything, we should have a longer amber times then other jurisdictions due to extreme weather conditions we have here (icey roads).

      Still not convinced? Read these:

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/73441036/Basic-Winnipeg-Signing-and-Amber-Light-Issues
      http://www.scribd.com/doc/72093314/Battle-at-Brookside
      http://www.scribd.com/doc/73885742/Removal-of-Camera-Warning-Signs-on-Medians

      Unanswered Letters to The City of Winnipeg:
      http://www.scribd.com/doc/78215871/Grant-Speed-Reduction-Letter
      http://www.scribd.com/doc/78215755/Winnipeg-Public-Works-Missing-Speed-Signs
      http://www.scribd.com/doc/73787509/Letter-to-City-of-Winnipeg-Main-Street-Speed-Reduction
      http://www.scribd.com/doc/73787068/Letter-to-City-of-Winnipeg-Playground-Zone-Signs

      Thanks for reading,
      Chris sweryda
      801-9239

  158. Todd Dube says:

    Laurie why don’t you watch the Must See Videos so you can understand the simple issue that short ambers are not only profitable but dangerous.

  159. Laurie Taite says:

    Chris, let me set the scene here. Im driving down the road that has an upcomong photoradarlight. I’m doin 62 kph. I know because I glance at my speedo more than ONCE on any given trip. Here you are coming out of a side street as I pass by. You stomp on it and get up to a measley 75kph, and are slowly gaining on my rear bumper. The light ahead turns amber and I start to slow down to prepare to stop. The light chnages to red and I stop…BANG..!!! You pile into me and then cry to the City the amber was too short, and you were ONLY doing 15k over the posted limit. I hadn’t even NOTICED the Photo Radar sign as I was doing a quich check of my speed and fuel settings, so I did NOT have to slam on the brakes worrying about getting caught in a photo shot going through a red at 75kph…imagine that…! Meanwhile, you are pissed off at me for stopping too quick to avoid a photo ticket, when in FACT you were SPEEDING and following too close to have any reaction time available to you. PLEASE…tell us all what part of this scenerio doesn’t sit well with the “MAJORITY” of the posted blogs…? I have seen this scene so many times(most were near misses thank god), while going to work each day is amazing they were NOT rear enders. Common sense, legallity issues, and proper traffic flow are all issues that need attention in this debate. My only gripe through this whole mess is that Winnipeggers WILL NOT SLOW DOWN…PERIOD…BTW, if you are caught going 80-85 in the left lane on Bishop Grandin, going to the malls, please be aware that you have NO RIGHT to be going THAT SLOW in THAT lane…you will be immediately set upon by the hordes of bumper hangers that think THAT lane is for people to do any speed they like, and the rest of us 80kph slow asses should keep to the right. Just sayin.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Yes, that is all too common of a scene in Winnipeg. That is why we need those drivers to get pulled over by a real police officer and given a real ticket instead of whoever owns the vehicle getting a ticket mailed to them two weeks later. Almost all of those aggressive drivers that are doing insane speeds are fully aware of what they’re doing and slow down for the cameras. The program wouldn’t pay for itself going after just those people which is why we have the issues with ambers and signs that I’m trying to address. I’m not defending bad drivers, but here’s a couple of examples of people who I am defending and cases that have kept me motivated.

      Speeding – Grandmother in East St. Paul phoned me because she had a ticket at Grant/Wilton for doing 63 in a 50. She wasn’t even sure where that was because she usually takes the perimeter to visit her grandson on Roblin, but this day went through the city. She said she rememberd coming off of Pembina and seeing the 60 sign but she had no idea where the speed reduced or where the camera was. She did recall driving beside a large truck for a short distance. She obviously didn’t see the reduction because her view was blocked by the truck and because Winnipeg is the only major city in Canada that doesn’t dual sign, she didn’t have the advantage of there being a sign on the median. She’s on a fixed income and $216 is going to leave quite a mark. The city knows how much money they will loose if they dual sign speed signs so that is why they continue to refuse to do it.

      Red Light – Young girl I saw present her case in traffic court. She had a ticket from the camera at Grassie and Lagimodiere (80 zone) for running a red light 0.1 second into the red which isn’t even distinguishable by the human eye. Her story was that she turned onto the road from Springfield and started to speed up but realizing how icey the road was, she stayed at about 40-50 km/h. The snow plow was just ahead of here polishing up the ice. When the light changed, she tried to stop but couldn’t and slid through the intersection. The ticket stated that her speed was 12 km/h at the time she crossed the stop line. Had she not tried to stop, she would easily have not been ticketed. In the picture, everything around her car what white from the camera flash reflecting off the ice. The judge said that ice or no ice, we can’t have people running red lights even if it’s only 0.1 second into the red. Since Winnipeg uses a 4.0 second amber in 80 zones, she got here ticket during the time that if she were in any other Canadian city, the light would still be amber for another second. Almost all city’s are using 5.0-5.5 second ambers in 80 zones. Besides Winnipeg, the shortest I’ve found is Ottawa with 4.6.

      These are the people I’m fighting for and the kinds of cases that represent the vast majority of photo enforcement tickets.

  160. Todd Dube says:

    Chris good job responding to these posts. Some of the posters make it obvious that they haven’t seen any of the content or they wouldn’t make comments such as “just pay your tickets” etc. Chris has done a review of City signing practices that will soon be made public which clealry reflects direct correlation between photo enforcement locations and those stretches most deficient in zoning and signing. That is not a coincidence. The massive majority of “speeding” tickets are to good drivers doing 63kph in stretches that should be 60kph to begin with – not 50kph. The “50kph unless otherwise posted” rule is nonsense – there are dozens of speed drops and they aren’t sufficiently posted. It is purely targeted, abusive enforcement that has zero to do with safety. Todd Dube

  161. Darren Hollingerom says:

    As for the so called speed trap on the sound end of St Norbert, before i even lived in Winnipeg, I would drive my transport truck many times to, and from the the border, and I clearly was aware of the speed change! Now that i live in St Norbert I’m OK with it, anything to slow down the drivers so my kids don’t get ran over by someone driving to fast, and 60km is plenty fast enough. If you are that pressed for time, and can’t slow down to 60km then be prepared to pay the price!
    You guys are starting to sound like kids, so I’m going to tell you what I tell them. If you don’t like the punishment then then think twice about the crime!
    Here is a thought, leave 15min earlier, and enjoy a leisurely drive, and be stress free when you arrive at your destination!

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      As a truck driver you should know the safety purpose for adhering to the 85th percentile method of establishing speed-limits (the city claims to, like all cities, however does not). Also be aware that we have saved truckers thousands of dollars by making them aware of the ridiculously limit there – as evidenced by their braking and honks of support. Are you even aware that St. Mary’s Rd parallel is a winding single-lane road that is 90kph? Or the donkey-path that connects the two over the Floodway is 70kph? Pipeline road is also 90 km/h and it’s just a gravel trail. Try and reconcile that and in the meantime – WiseUp and get on the right side of a situation that is obvious to all.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      I didn’t know people let their kids play on the highway outside the city.

  162. Laurie Taite says:

    Carl says the City of Winnipeg is obsessed with traffic violations. WRONG..! Drivers in the City of Winniopeg are obsessed with SPEEDING…! Carl also thinks education is neede for cross-walk people. I say DRIVERS need RE-education on the basics of understanding the speed laws in town. This isn`t frikkn rocket science people. No sign…50kph…easy. Or is that too hard a thing to remember while texting your buddy where the speed traps are…!!

  163. Laurie Taite says:

    Hey Creighton, you and the REST of this blog are just plain angry you got caught and belong to the same group of dolts that forget what the standard speed is in unmarked areas. It just proves you nitwits are too busy doing òther`things while driving to pay attention to the rules of the road.
    Creighton thinks that the bulk of drivers think like he does and that the City of Winnipeg is out to “make some càsh`on poor hard working, unsuspecting Winnipeg drivers. You make monkeys look like Einsteins. Driving is a earned privaledge, and once you get your licence, you are SUPPOSED to remember MOST of the rules of the road. Speeding has become the norm in Winnipeg, with runnuing ambers a close second. All you panty waisted whiners are griping because the ambers are too short to get through an intersection before the radar camera gerts them. ALERT,ALERT…if you are speeding to begin with you DESERVE to get the ticket AND be rear-ended by the SPEEDIND dufus behind you…!
    Every single day on the way to work, I get passed while I`m doin just over 60 down St. Annes toward downtown. Smart assed 20-30 something dames puttin on makeup, IMPORTANT business guys flappin their gums on cells, and red neck pickup drivers weaving in and out like Nascar. People think that once they are in their car, the road is THEIRS, to use as they see fit in completion of their IMPORTANT journey. Ice covered, wet, heavy snow, makes no difference to the lead foots. Get the F–K outa my way, I gotta get somewhere.

    People may HATE Mark B. as you say Creighton, but I feel sorry for you. A dissolutioned, sad excus for a human being…with a licence to drive yet…scary….

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      There are getting to be way too many personal attacks on here. I suggest we should all set-up a meeting with each of us bringing the evidence we claim to have and see if we can come to some kind of conclusion. I will say right now that this site is not about trying to get speeders and agressive drivers off. This is about showing the issues with Winnipeg infrastructure that are getting people caught into doing 10-15 km/h over the limit and getting fined. I’m not defending people doing 20-30 km/h over the limit or agressive drivers. How can anyone argue that it’s okay for Winnipeg to have the shortest amber times in the country in high speed zones and be the only city that doesn’t dual sign speed reductions while still putting all the blame on the drivers?

  164. Creighton says:

    Mark, Mark B. They moderate comments on this site for people like me. People who will flip their lid on people like you. Youand ‘Laurie Taite’ are the only people on this blog that disagree with everything. I’d like to see you pull that left turn off Nathaniel onto grant that day, drive the speed limit, get blasted with a 300 dollar ticket, then say you could of 99% avoided that. I strongly think you either work for MPI, or the Winnipeg Police. Read the WHOLE blog dude. People hate you.

  165. v bjornson says:

    I fully support wise up winnipeg! Please continue ypur great work. Vancouver has removed camera ticketers so why can’t we. Its citizens simply refused to pay these tickets.

  166. Mark says:

    I see they moderate comments on this site that don’t agree with them. Pretty hypocritical.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Since I’m the only one who moderates the comments, I can tell you I’ve only not approved one comment that wasn’t span which I considered abusive and a personal attack. Since you want everything approved, I’ve put it up now with everything else I was behind on. Due to the 1600 comments that have so far been spam, I do get behind, but all real comments do go up eventually. I will state that I know the police deleate comments from their just slow down website that aren’t favourable to them. I’ve had many of my comments removed even though they were not attacking anyone and only stated facts. So really, if your suggesting we have a fair playing field, maybe I should stop approving commetns unfavourable to us.

  167. shocker says:

    I say we start doing this. If you see a photoradar van in a spot where its legal to park, to pull over and park directly in front of the van. Just say you have to make some phone calls. If its in a legal spot they cant do a thing. I know a guy that did it and the waste of skin driving the van got all excited and threatened to call the police. He said go ahead

  168. Mark B says:

    Hey Normand, those people are idiots and deserve their tickets. If there is no posted speed the speed limit is 50. If you don’t know even the most basic rules of road you shouldn’t be on it.

  169. Having an Officer as a friend, I asked if there are ‘monthly quotas’ for distributed fines to meet a revenue figure to be generated from tickets. He merely smiled, and replied, “No, there are no quotas. They(undefined ‘they’) will notify you though if your tally of submitted tickets in the station drop box for the month is less than previous months.”

    Think about it.

  170. jacquie desilets says:

    I am going to court in March for a ticket I received at the Hwy 75 trap. I actually have a witness who will testify that I was not exceeding the speed limit, so how many others have been falsely accused? I was so glad to see the sign that was placed recently in the area by WiseUpWinnipeg. Common sense would dictate that the sign would encourage speeders to slow down. So why is it that the Police Dept chose to tear the sign down? Clearly, it is not a safety issue, it’s a money maker.

  171. shocker says:

    I was recently in Calgary and in a cab. Not only do they not make you drive in a Prius piece of crap like they do here, they dont have those shields or white “help me” strobes on the roof. Instead of traffic cops (tax revenue clerks) why dont they put more cops out on walking beats to make Winnipeg safer? Imagine what the new Jets players and other teams think of our city when they see a Prius with a shield for the driver? Could they or would they walk downtown? The City just cares about taxing law abiding citizens instead of the scum this City needs to clean up.

  172. Frank Anon says:

    So much inconsistency in the City of Winnipeg regarding speed limits and signage. It’s corruption, all of it.

    The worst part is fining people who travel on Highway 75 who have done NOTHING to deserve their ticket. Driving 70 in that ridiculous 60 zone south of St. Norbert isn’t a hazard to anyone.

    It’s time to Wise Up Winnipeg indeed. It’s time for City leadership to get over themselves.

  173. Vern Tkach says:

    We live in the northwest part of the city, G.C. and naturally unfamaliar with the speed zone south of St Norbert, however my son who was driving to G.F. with his Mom Dec 7/11 received a speading ticket in the cash grab area noted in this weeks media South of St. Norbert and we made a $444.00 donation as a result of the ticket to the cash strapped city of winnipeg !!!!!! You would think city hall has received enough tax dollars from the booming real estate business this past year!!! Considering we are the Murder Capital of Canada once again the priorties of this city’s police department & city hall should be in this area of responsibilities and not to place the increase in Police staffing in enforcing speeding, as a cash grab!!
    FYI, another photo radar cash grab is on Salter between Jefferson & Leila, north of Edmund Partridge School, yes everyone slows down in a school zone however once you pass the school zone you enter a playground zone which is not posted as such and guess what, yes photo radar sitting in an unmarked car!!!!

  174. Dorian F. says:

    I have been robbed by this city in the past and the last ticket I received I fought in court and won but this area is still a danger to all motorists. I’m talking about the Salter Bridge, there are no speed limit signs anywhere up and down Salter/Balmoral/Isabel/Colony/Osborne etc etc. I have been driving 60km/h on this street everyday for a year and I drive through many radar-photo intersections never once receiving a ticket but suddenly when I am on top of the Salter Bridge the police nab me and say this is a 50km/h zone. Everyday they sit at one end or the other with speed traps and there is NO SPEED LIMIT SIGN. I am hoping to bring this to the attention of WiseUp Winnipeg if it hasn’t been brought to their attention already. Thank you.

  175. veronique says:

    How it is ever so nice of the City thinking about our safety especially our conditions in winter…..NOT.
    Inconsiderate people like to make money off people having to slam there breaks going ex in a 60 zone and the light turning red in a matter of seconds. Not knowing if the guy in front of you will run the yellow to prevent an accident or not. Either way no one seems to consider this let alone fixing anything around Wpg that is safety related. So i mean really, go ahead and think of yourselves as this may be a wake up call one day when someone you know ends up really hurt over this.

    Thanks

  176. l. Normand says:

    same thing on provencher blvd, no speed limit signs, but the cops sit by the nicolet hotel, and nab people doing 60 in a 50 zone. The only speed limit sign is all the way down close to the bridge. You need one of your signs there, because marion is 60, goulet is 60 and archibald is 60, so people automatically figure that provencher is 60, no signs saying otherwise. Anytime the weather is nice you’ll see them there.

  177. Mark B says:

    There is an easy solution to 99% of the issues posted here, stop breaking the law and complaining that you got caught. Take some responsibility for your actions.

  178. Carl says:

    I am new to Winnipeg and I have never seen anything like it! This city is obsessed with traffic violations and have set up the system in such a way that drivers are always at a disadvantage.
    Speed limits are inconsistently posted and change rapidly (3 different speed limits within approx 1.5 Km on Keneston)
    Police officers then wait at the speed limit sign to “nab” you.
    The fine rates are well above other municipalities.
    Traffic light changes are inconsistent and basically a crap shoot anytime you go through an intersection.
    Ontario abandoned the cash-grab photo radar for good reason.
    Considering we have a murder problem, maybe that’s where we should put our efforts.

    Additionally, maybe we could do a little education on how to merge into traffic and teach pedestrians to look before crossing at flashing crosswalks. There is actually a “point of no return” for a driver regardless of when you hit the crosswalk button.

  179. scott wilkie says:

    I will be going to court in a week and a half to fight an intersection violation. I received the photo-radar ticket and not only couldn’t make out the license number, couldn’t read the province on the plate or the make of the vehicle. It didn’t even offer up the exact intersection location. The color photo they sent me wasn’t any better. If they want to seperate me from my hard earned money, they’re going to have to do a better job with their quality control. I wasn’t even in town on the night of the supposed infraction. Also, haven’t the police got better things to do, like fight crime. My neighbor called in a domestic dispute and they called back 45 minutes later asking if they still required police presence. I call in some valdelism in progress and they said it would be an hour and a half before they could respond.

  180. antonio says:

    More like, WHATS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE , you know its there but you keep pushing the gas and never once put the brakes on the goverment. cash grab yeah, it sure is but on the other side of it what about the other stupid crap with driving. And you people know what i mean, no turn signil or driving slow in the left lane the list go’s on, improper use of a car period, if you live here then you should know. The city should crack down on the way some people drive or should i say lack of driving. its about wising up right. as long as the people of this province and city keep putting in the same people to run it. but that would mean that only the ones who are getting those tickets are the ones who never voted them in i guess, or we would have a real system that was fair and true. what i can say is stopping on a yellow was not in the road test. This city is trying to be like other citys. the way it spends its money, sorry our money, on things like putting in bike lanes on the left side of the road with out changeing the traffic act first tells me the city awswers to no one. It can do what it likes with out your say winnipeg. Theres so much to be said about this city, more bad then good lately.So SUCK IT UP people get in line with everyone else.Change is needed and this is the platfrom to start it.

  181. Patrick says:

    I find it amusing that so many people are complaining of tickets on Grant and feel there is a problem. I would suggest the real problem is that many people follow a rule of driving at 10% over the speed limits and think that the speed limit on Grant is 60kph. Funny how none of these drivers appear to be aware of the speed they were traveling at. Try paying attention to your speed and you will discover 1. how quickly you can get up to speeds over 60 KPH. 2. That often the traffic is often traveling over the speed limit. 3. That many drivers are paying more attention to their phone, music or other things inside their car than with the task at hand of driving their automobile.
    Just slow down people and you won’t get a ticket.
    To Evan C you mentioned you sped up after passing the photo radar. What is your hurry? You will eventually get a ticket as you obivously speed when you feel you will not be caught.
    Photo enforcement cameras are a tax on the stupid. If you are stupid enough to speed or run a red light then pay the tax. You can choose not to drive over the speed limit and save some money and make our raods safer or drive whatever speed you want but stop complaining when you get a ticket.

  182. Ryan says:

    Go to facebook and click “like” on the Warn a Brotha page to receive and post speed trap locations within the city of Winnipeg. Winnipegers helping Winnipegers…….. Good job wiseupwinnipeg.com

  183. TAKENOTE says:

    Has anyone noticed everyone talking about the light at Grant have all been doing 66 kmh?

  184. Nicholas says:

    It’s absolutely amazing how horrific driving in Winnipeg is. It’s almost like a police state in the city for sure and in the province in general. The speed limits are much too low in general. 75 South of St. Norbert should actually be on International News for how blatant that speed trap is. 60 km/h on a divided 4 lane hwy where there are no more intersecting roads ahead??! It’s CRIMINAL and an absolute embarrassment. I grew up there, lived in BC, California and now Chicago. By FAR, Winnipeg is actually the worst place to drive. I feel sorry for all of the folks who actually think these rules are helping things there. The rest of the world is moving along safely at a much higher rate of speed. Winnipeg and the province, continue to plod along slowly…. ignorance is bliss I guess. Must be nice living in a place that doesn’t welcome visitors with speed traps expressly made for them, and be in a town where you are afraid for the police hiding behind every bush. I could go on and on. Wake up Manitobans. BC did and threw the whole lot out. Make the red light cameras just for red light running, not speed. Eliminate photo radar vans. Let the police pull you over if there’s a real worthwhile reason. I wonder how many citations are issued since photo units versus before. I bet it QUADRUPLE. All you’re doing is sending in the cheques. Enjoy.

  185. Lynne Marion says:

    I was caught speeding here a couple of months ago. The cops really abuse there authority. I will never go down Pembina, St Norbert again. I intentionally use St.Mary’s to get out of the city now. Yes the speed limit is only 90km but it really takes the same amount of time. I get back onto Hwy 75 via St Adolphe. I hope St Norbert will lose buisness over this situation and perhaps take a stand to our Wpg Police.

  186. Carolyn says:

    Has anyone else experienced the speed trap on Dugald road near the Transcona Country Club? At the perimeter, the speed is 80, slows down to 70 where there are some houses along the highway, and then even though the road opens up to 2 lanes, the speed limit drops to 50 around the Country Club, and then back up to 70 to Lagimodiere. 50??? Why?? And the signage is terrible, a little crooked sign in the ditch.

  187. Jocelyne says:

    I also got a ticket at Grant and Nathaniel going 66 km/hr….if I had known sooner that there would be a “joint ” action taking place I would have fought the ticket – it was due Dec 22 so I paid it – doubt I was going that speed…….doesn’t it seem very strange that so many of these tickets are for 66 km ?????

  188. chad says:

    I have seen articles post by people with Wise Up written above it. Wise Up about what. The only ones on here that complain about getting tickets and what not by the city police or by cameras are those that are speeding. Unless you are new to this city or where you got clocked by the camera is a new area to you and you just didn’t know the limit you really have no reason to complain. I never drive but know the speed limits in my areas so you have not a reason to complain if you frequent the areas you got caught. I hear people say I doubt I was going that fast or signs aren’t post properly. You have taken that route before so you know the limit and watch your spedometer once in awhlie. If you get clocked and get a ticket pay it and pay more attention to your speed while driveing and stop making excuses. It is your own darn fault so pay the price.

  189. Matt Meiers says:

    I just received a speeding ticket (photo radar) going west-bound on “Grant Ave west of Nathaniel”.
    It clocked my vehicle at 63km/h in a 50 zone.
    I have serious doubts that I was going that fast.

  190. Creighton says:

    And the Winnipeg police tell everyone that the cameras are right. People need to slow down. HA. Just payin for that chopper. Wow, isn’t that a way to be “building relationships”. Absolutely pathetic. This makes me sick.

  191. kpig says:

    Clearly safety is second when it comes to enforcement of any traffic law. Even 1/2 of a turn signal light being out will run ya $171.00! The turn signal still works, and anyone would be able to see the headlights running, but then where would the money go to buy them fancy new tasers to murder more drunk people with. Clearly the cops wont waste their time talking to you now a days. The double standard of them being able to drive and chat on the phone while the rest of us get a nice $200 fine is not the only thing. What happened to the good cops? You know, the ones with common sense? Now they are just doin their job, be it in a van “preventing” speeding (wasting our tax dollars), or pulling people over for not having one of six lights on in the front. The robberies and murders are clearly not as important as catching us folk who are the real criminals. It doesn’t matter that a drunk is driving, just as long as they pay that ticket the van sends out.

  192. Claudette says:

    We have the same stupid issue going on in Royalwood. Shorehill Drive has Photo Radar everyday, a couple of times a day, and the city refuses to post a speed limit. The entire St. Vital area is 60Km but they nail everyone driving over 50Km on our street. I have contacted the city to suggest having signage available to remind people to slow down for the safety of our children. One year later nothing has been posted yet.
    Someone has to take a stand..

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      I’m very familier with that location. Going off of Bishop Grandin (80 km/h zone), there are 6 exits that have a speed limit of 50 km/h. They are:
      1 – River Rd NB (North-Bound)
      2 – River Rd SB
      3 – Shorehill SB
      4 – Lakewood NB
      5 – Lake Crest SB
      6 – Seigneurie SB
      Locations, 1, 2 & 4 are signed as 50 km/h and 3, 5 & 6 are not. As you can guess, the three that are signed do not have photo radar and the three that are not signed do have photo radar. For the city to avoid signing the ones that have photo radar, they have in turn not signed the ones that have school or playground zones since those are the only zones photo radar is allowed to enforce in. I addressed this issue with them last July and to date, no signs have gone up.

  193. Evan C says:

    I have a quick question, I was driving at 48 by the unmarked photo radar on Grant St. and about 300 Feet I sped up to about 58-60, Does anyone know how far these radars can get you at, and wether the radar is only a diagonal beam showing the speed of the person travelling beside the car?

    Please answer, this is important.

  194. carol says:

    WE GOT CAUGHT TWICE DURING CONSTRUCTION ON BISHOP GRANDIN; SATURDAYS WITH NO-ONE WORKING. THIS SUMMER GOT CAUGHT ON BISHOP NEAR THE HYDRO STATION. JUST RECEIVED ANOTHER ONE TODAY – 64KMH IN A 50KMH ZONE STAFFORD AROUND KINGSWAY. I’M GETTING SCARED TO EVEN BE ON THE ROADS. BY THE TIME YOU GET THE TICKETS YOU DON’T REMEMBER IF THEIR WERE ANY EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES. I’M NOT A SPEEDER- ON THE HIGHWAYS IN A 100 KMH ZONE I GO 100 NO MORE NO LESS. HOW DO WE KNOW WHETHER WE HAVE ANY GROUNDS TO FIGHT ANY OF THESE TICKETS.

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      Stafford is a photo radar hotspot. Assuming you were going NB, you should state that the speed limit is not well signed. It is 50 unless otherwise posted, but the city does have some 50 signs and they always seem to be on roads without enforcement. The city has signed WB Taylor leaving Pembina, so there is no reason why Stafford shouldn’t be signed as well since it is the busier road. If you were going SB, you should argue that there should be a sign on Stafford since it is the busier road and they have signed Wellington Crescent. Neither Taylor or Wellington have photo radar, so that is why they are signed. It is hard at times to tell poorly signed 60+ zones from unsigned 50 zones. Pembina has no sign right from just south of Jubilee to almost Plaza; a distance of 2.6 km. Bishop Grandin has no 80 sign on EB east of Dakota. So, following the city’s rule, you should be going 50 on Pembina Hwy if you came off McGillvray or 50 on Bishop Grandin if you came off Dakota. With such poor signing, at some point you end up just going with the flow of traffic. It’s also illegal to travel in the right lane at a speed less then the limit so your in the wrong no matter what you do. It’s always worthwhile to fight. There’s always a chance they drop it or the photo radar operator doesn’t show which is a win before it even gets to trial. Your ticket will not go up, and you have nothing to lose by trying.

  195. tom says:

    i also got a ticket at Grant & Nathanial this past month….Ticket said I was doing 66,,No way I was going that fast….evryone who got a ticket there should hit the courthouse at the same time.

  196. I have not yet received a photo flash while going through any intersection in Winnipeg, but, find them to be very anoying, would like to join your group

  197. Well, I haven’t been tagged with a photo ticket yet, knock on wood, but I would like to join this forum too.

  198. Shawna says:

    I would like to join thus group as I supposely got my first photo ticket today! Grant of all places! I wanna fight with the teachers and everyone else!

  199. Mike says:

    I would like to know how I get involved to solve this injustice, I received a speeding ticket in the mail and I think it was from an improper set camera as I have had a clean driving record for the last 20 years and I get tagged for 16 over? i think the red light cameras and electronic speed traps are nothing but a cash cow for a city who is to cheap to put more cops on the street

  200. Lynn says:

    http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/01/25/17025646.html

    Much like Grant Avenue tickets. No wonder police want to stick to their story the machines are precise. The whole program would be tossed and refunds required.

  201. SabTina says:

    The same thing happened to me on Nathaniel and Grant. The ticket I received said I was doing 66 in a 50. I drive there all the time and there is no way I was doing that speed. I just paid the ticket feeling like I had no choice – my word against theirs! Now I feel duped as so many others do!

  202. Travis R says:

    What about those cops on Plessis Rd.? If the city did something about the trains maybe people would slow down. Both rush hours every day for the last two months mixed with a cop hiding in the bush really helps pay for an overpriced chopper I guess?

  203. Kevin says:

    Just read the article regarding Grant and Nathaniel which is where I recieved my ticket. I had just turned right onto Grant (was at the Royal Bank) and began to head westbound toward home. The ticket I recieved stated I was going 66km which is impossible. I drive a 4cyl vehicle and I’d have to floor it to get upt to that speed by the point they indicate I was speeding. Pleaded not guilty and now have a January court date.

  204. Ed Labossiere says:

    This is all so true and a very sensible cause. Another issue is the speed limit on Pembina Highway through St. Norbert south to the city limits.
    50 km/hr through St. Norbert, then 60 km/hr in basically a rural area, then 90 km/ hr for about a km before 100 km/hr to Morris.
    People are getting tickets there steadily whenever they set up a radar station. It certainly gives a sour taste to everyone coming to and leaving from Winnipeg. You gotta wonder what the authorities are thinking in this case. Limits should be 60, 70 and 100 respectively.

  205. Creighton says:

    LAURIE TAITE.
    Are you some 80 year old women who knows how to use the Internet? Because im gonna sure as hell bet you drive like one. As far as I’m concerned, speeding is not the full issue here. It’s drivers who don’t know how to properly use/operate/maneuver a motor vehicle on the road. Eg, people who get to a yield and think that it says “stop” for some reason, People who text in bumper to bumper traffic, people who drive 50 in an 80, or people who are just fucking slow. I wouldn’t say every speeding ticket is a cash grab, however, the truth is, a majority of them are. I swore pretty damn well at a photo enforcing prick who decided to stop by mcdonalds the other day. If you wanna become one then you’ll have to deal with me too…oh, and about 90% of Winnipeg too. Do me a favor “Laurie Taite”, stay the hell outta my way.

  206. john says:

    try the radar on the 101 and portage ave; i go by there every day it shows me doing 80 kl. and i am doing 60 ; try it 3 times it is not right half the time every one going there knows it

  207. Don Reay says:

    HELP ME PLEASE!!!!!! I believe I was a victim of the Grant Ave. CAMERA TRAP. I was recently driving down grant ( I actually live on Grant) and was Flashed by the camera that sits on the north side service road. It is a school zone I damn well know I am not to speed and I wasn’t. The camera car flashed me twice on two seperate occasions. I recieved my tickets soon after and of course thought nothing of it and paid them. I was very angry at the fact that I recieved these tickets seeing as i have never recieved a ticket from a camera or a trap. Then I discovered that in the paper on Saturday Dec. 10th some teachers have been trapped as well. This injustice is unfair and I want my money back for the OFFENSE I DID NOT COMMIT. PLEASE HELP ME!!!!!

  208. Creighton says:

    Hello. Once again, another full supporter. I am a safe driver, very aware, and tickets need to be given to the REAL speeders. This is the biggest scam, and is actually driving me closer and closer to leaving. The people that sit in these Photo vehicles must wake up in the morning feeling like they’ve let themselves down. Just the other day I saw one on Corydon. He was about to give someone a $300 ticket just a couple weeks before Christmas. I have something to say about that. I came to a complete stop right beside him, and flipped him off for a good 5 seconds. Then he tried to scare me by flashing me after I had picked up speed and continued driving down the road. Anyone that steps foot in oneof these photo enforcing vehicles should be previously told about how much of a low life motherfuc*er they are.

  209. Derk says:

    What brand are the winnipeg cameras?

  210. Jerry says:

    Hey Chris, thank you very much for your informative presentation at our work place this week. Keep up the hard work

  211. Ryan says:

    Vancouver had to throw out the photo radar because when they mail you a ticket it’s not being legally “served” to you. Unfortunately I drive a company vehicle and my employer makes me pay the ticket, but if you just don’t pay it they cannot collect it.

    I plan to go to court for the last one I got and tell them I was never served and that I will not be paying it. I will send it my request to plead not guilty by mail so they cannot server me when I go to the court house.

  212. Laurie Taite says:

    Hey all, I’m back. New research just in. Out of 128 cars spotted going through the lights at Portage and Smith, 68 ran the yellow at a high rate of speed, 28 ran the red, and the rest were caught IN the intersection when the amber turned red…!!! Also, there were 18 vehicles that were denied the right to vacate the middle of the intersection while waiting to turn North onto Smith because of speeding drivers gunning for the last bit of amber…!!

    Its all about that BIG FAT LEAD FOOT people…NOT the cameras…there aren’t ANY at this intersection…!!!

    LT

  213. Terry B says:

    Hi everyone, I could use people’s help and experience with portable photo radar…

    First of all i’d like to say I am very happy to see so many people that aren’t willing to just “bend over” and let this greedy ca$h grab get away without a fight. I do agree that speeding is speeding and is breaking the law, but this photo enforcement is about money not safety. I have a question for anyone willing to help me… I was driving my wife’s car yesterday (an American bought car with mph) in st. vital down a street i honestly don’t think i’ve ever been down before. I was doing about 40mph which i guess is a little over 60kmh when i saw a flash out of a parked minivan. Until then i didn’t notice a school or anything as i was unfamiliar with the street. DO i have any hope of fighting this so as to pay less than the actual ticket? IT upsets me because i shouldn’t be speeding, BUT this “school zone” was at 8:30pm on a friday night in the middle of summer!!! I’ve NEVER had a photo ticket every before. Given these circumstances is there Any hope for me or what? Thanks everyone!

  214. Steve Miller says:

    Fact is photo radar is a revenue generator for the city of Winnipeg which Sam Katz uses in order to not raise taxes in other areas and can hide behind the excuse that it makes the roads safer…it doesnt. Until the people of Winnipeg smarten up and demand a change there is no reason for this cash cow to end. I drove in Vancouver for 17 years and did not recieve a single speeding ticket in that time, however, within one year of living in Winnipeg I have recieved 4 speeding tickets all from photo radar and all 10-12 km/hr over the speed limit…give me a break Winnipeg.

  215. Lyle says:

    Hey, why not slow down? Save money on gas and tickets!

  216. Steve Gembarsky says:

    Predatory? The yellow at Keewaitin and Selkirk. Nailed twice ($400). I go through other enforcement camera intersections and have never gotten a ticket. I am not a speeder, keep my eyes on the road. Went to the cops, the guy said “It’s not worth your time and expense to fight it, just pay it”. It’s like the Mafia!

  217. Laurie Taite says:

    This whole red light, radar, too-short-amber fiasco is a CROCK…!! Winnipeg is chock full of speeders who could care LESS about WHAT AN AMBER LIGHT MEANS. The results are in from radar along Bishop Grandin and to no surprise to me at least, the speeders are winning…! You keep blathering on about a scam, unfair entrapment, false safety issues, when in reality these same tactica are used by speeders and those that get caught and want to raise some hell over it. Its a loads of BS that the times for ambers are too short. What about BEFORE red light cameras came along…? If you are following too close as to rear-end the guy who stops too quick, then you are following TOO DAMN CLOSE…OR…as is the most prbable case…YOU ARE SPEEDING…plain and simple. Stop whining and just DO THE FRIKKIN SPEED LIMIT…!!!!!!!!!

    • Chris Sweryda says:

      I think this comment needs some data behind it to give it some context. Now, since it came up, lets look at Bishop Grandin. First of all, the WPS’s favourite spot is the Hydro station just west of Pembina. Bishop at this point could easily be thought to be or be 90 at this point (from 200m east of Waverley to 200m west of River). There are no intersections, sidewalks or parking along this stretch and it’s outside of the 80 km/h buffer required 200m each way from a signalized intersection. Speed limits go as high as 100 at other overpasses such as McPhillips and the north Perimieter which is no different then the Bishop/Pembina overpass. There are 90 zones in the city such as pipeline road which is signed at 90 even inside the city and it’s just a small road with at grade intersections. Both the south perimeter and Lagimodiere are 100 at the overpass and that is also within city limits. Now, going with the speed limit of 80 for Bishop, lets look at the signs. They are 60x75cm-minimum sized and are way higher and farther off the road (up on the light poles) then the standards manual allows. Outside the city limits (perimeter for starters), the highways dept uses 90x120cm signs on their own posts right at the edge of the highway and at proper height (2.1m). The highways dept is also using high intensity reflectivity (about twice as bright at night-see Dugald/East Perimeter for example) while we have yet to find one installed in the city including on Bishop Grandin. All city speed signs so far appear to be only engineer grade-minimum requirements. In regards to ambers, they have been inadequate for many years although it’s worse now for two reasons. 1-cameras issue a ticket at 0.1 sec over the red when the naked eye wouldn’t even be able to detect it. 2-The inadequate lights have been SHORTENED at many locations after the cameras came. The amber at Grant/Pembian used to be 4.5 sec long before the camera came in at which point it got dropped to 4.0.

  218. Victor Bryll says:

    I would also like to become a full member of your organization. The guise of doing all these for safety is just another way for a tax grab. They will not share all the results of the cameras by location. They are also predatory in their locatioon of signs etc.Good work keep it up.

  219. Alex Takacs says:

    It’s time for somebody to speak up against double standards of the city of Winnipeg.
    Most tickets are nothing else than a cash grab….. they have nothing to do with safety
    or improvements they are just a money grab by the city is a legalized stealing from us
    ordinary citizens….. enough already of all the temporary signs don’t turn here or there,
    regardless if it is day or night….. that’s really stupid!!!!!

  220. Alex Takacs says:

    Hello
    i hope to be a full member of this site. Finally somebody thinks right here in ‘peg.
    Legal robbery that’s what going on here. Good luck you got my full support,

    Alex Takacs 204-219-8995 alextakax@hotmail.com

Leave a Reply