-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.

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)

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.

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?)