# Question About Traffic Ticket On Base - "Fail to obey traffic sign - stop sign"



## Scoobs (19 May 2011)

I searched the forums and could not find an already existing thread to answer my questions.  I'm hoping that my MP friends out there can help me.

I received a ticket today while driving in my civy veh on a base in Ontario.  I feel that I came to a stop, but alas, the MP did not feel the same.  This is a difference of opinion, but unfortunately I'm the one with the ticket.  The ticket is for, exact quote:

"Fail to obey traffic sign - stop sign"

I was NOT given the offence notice under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, which surprised me as I thought that this applied on an Ontario base.  Rather, I was given a ticket under the "Government Property Traffic Regulations".  The section was nine (9).  The total fine is $65.00.  The MP told me that I would not get any demerit pts and he told me that his interaction with me was being taped.  He was very professional and polite, as was I, as he is only doing his job.

In addition, the MP stated, "the white car in front of you didn't do a very good job of stopping, but you just went right through".  How could I have "just went right through" if there was a car in front of me?  Logically, wouldn't I have hit the white car in the rear end?

I believe that I made a good stop.  However, my dilemna is this.  Will this effect my insurance rates?  I know that it could if I was charged under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, but I'm not so sure about this "Government Property Traffic Regulations", especially since the MP told me that I would receive no demerit points.  

For full disclosure, I have no major or minor traffic offences within the last 5 years.  I know that the insurance companies in Ontario go as far back as 3 years.

I'm being posted next month and if it won't effect my insurance rates I will just pay the fine to be over with it as I have many other things to worry about right now.  However, since I believe that I made a good stop and if it will effect my insurance rates, I am wondering if I should fight the ticket ???????

Any advice out there, especially on the "Government Property Traffic Regulations", would be greatly appreciated.  Please don't jump on me by telling me that I should just pay.  Remember, I believe that I did a good stop.  I will be the first person to admit if I did something wrong and then take responsibility for it.

Thanks.


----------



## 57Chevy (19 May 2011)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> Please don't jump on me by telling me that I should just pay



OK......I won't



			
				Scoobs said:
			
		

> I feel that I came to a stop



I see



			
				Scoobs said:
			
		

> Logically, wouldn't I have hit the white car in the rear end?



Logically ?? ???




			
				Scoobs said:
			
		

> Any advice out there ?



just pay the ticket ;D
Be thankfull you did not lose demerit points which would affect licence fees 
Learn from it and have a nice evening just the same.


----------



## garb811 (19 May 2011)

As a Federal Establishment, provincial traffic laws do not apply directly.  The Regulations which are applicable are the Government Property Traffice Regulations  and, because there is an GPTR offence related to traffic signs, which is what Section 9 is, that is the offence you are charged with, not the applicable provincial offence.  The reason you don't lose demerits is similar, as it is a GPTR offence, there is only a fine, no lose of demerits and not hit to your insurance bill (that I'm aware of anyways!).

Hope that answers your question.


----------



## Scoobs (19 May 2011)

garb811,

thank you for your post.  I really appreciate it.


----------



## MedCorps (20 May 2011)

In Ontario you can take the Offense Notice (ticket) and challenge it in court after you complete a Notice of Intention to Appear at the court office.  

How is this done with an alleged offense under the GPTR? 

MC


----------



## CountDC (24 May 2011)

No it is not logical that you would have hit the car in front.  I often have cars run the stop signs behind me and they don't hit me.  

as for you coming to a stop - were you pass the stop sign/line when you came to stop?  Being in Ottawa myself I notice that most drivers do this at stop signs and red lights which means, yes they ran the sign/light.

If you still want to fight the ticket then there should be little writing on it somewhere that will provide needed information - at least a phone number to call.


----------



## Alex7016 (24 May 2011)

garb811 said it all perfectly except that Government Property Traffic Regulations (GPTR) offences WILL in fact effect your insurance and that is because all GPTR offences still go through the Provincial Courts, even when you want to contest them. Eventhough the offence is being written though the GPTR its still written on a Provincial Offence Notice (PON) thus putting it into the Ministry of Transportation's system in Ontario (MTO). This is why when MP's run your drivers licence (DL) they will see you're infraction history on there, just as any other police force would, and if its one that was a GPTR offence, they will see the infraction with no demerit points. Stop sign's do have their own section under the GPTR but the GPTR are very limited in what traffic regulations they cover thus why they have their own section under 6(1) that covers everything else under the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) - when this happens you will see everything as you normalls would, with the noted HTA section there, and under it you will see that is it "contrary" to the GPTR, and the section. Nevertheless, no demerit points cause its either directly through the GPTR or contrary to the GPTR, BUT yes for insurance because it still through Provincial Courts and the MTO.

As for fighting the ticket, there is the instructions on how to do so on there under payments options - just like any other ticket from any police force. MP's use the same PON's as the city/municipal/provincial forces do in their area of responsibility (AOR) and you will end up going to the same Provincial Court as you would with any other police force.

For your stop sign infraction, there are a lot of factors that can come into play, like CountDC said about the stop line. There is also the fact that you MAY have rolled the stop, in that, your wheels did not come to a COMPLETE stop before proceeding.

Anyways hard to say if you didn't see it - hopefully this clears up some issues.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 May 2011)

Pay the friggin' ticket : It's not worth tha aggravation you're putting yourself through, even if you were to win.

Just like prison, eveyoooonnnne'sss innocent.


----------



## Scoobs (24 May 2011)

Simply put, no, I won't "just pay the friggin ticket".  I know that I did a proper stop.  I asked for advice on the GPTR and thankfully I received some good advice on it and this is much appreciated.

Further info:

1. No stop line. Only stop sign.
2. The stop sign is at a street that ends, i.e. you have to go left or right.
2. Yes, I would have hit the car in front of me should I have not stopped as it turned left directly in front of me.  So, yes, logicially this would have happened.
3. My wife and I went to the location tonight and from where the MP was, there is absolutely no way he could have seen me stop.  This is because it is totally obscured by large pine trees.  We tried and could not even see the stop sign.  I went to the location where the MP was and the first time that I saw my car (as my wife drived the car slowly through the stop sign (AFTER STOPPING !!)) was when my car was already half way past the stop sign.
4. The stop sign is located about 1.5 to 2 meters behind where the steet intersects the next street.  Thus, you must first stop at the sign and then move forward IOT see if it is safe to proceed.  I did this and it was safe.
5. I have no other tickets on my record.  Thus, I'm not just trying to get out of a ticket for the sake of getting out of a ticket!

Thus, the MP could have thought that I rolled through the stop sign, when in fact I stopped and then proceeded forward safely.  This could just have been an honest mistake by the MP, but he still has the responsibility (whether in law or not, this is just the right thing to do and with power comes responsibility) to properly see the stop sign, especially if he is going to give someone a ticket for it!

I was always aware of "Option 3" on the back of the ticket, i.e. to fight it.  I just didn't know much, nor could I find much, about the GPTR.  The advice given in this forum has proven very valuable.  Although some have given up on fighting for what they believe is right, I am not one of these type of people, even after being in the military for over 13 years (over time this can make you cynical).  Thus, I will fight the ticket, not because I don't want to pay a fine (because I can easily afford it), but because I did nothing wrong.


----------



## Alex7016 (25 May 2011)

The mere fact that there is no stop line on the ground will be the point that wins your case... also worth mentioning the position of the MP when you go to court. Chances are the MP might not even show up for court and you won't have to even bother pleading your case.


----------



## aesop081 (25 May 2011)

Alex7016 said:
			
		

> The mere fact that there is no stop line on the ground will be the point that wins your case...



There are rules for locations where no stop line is painted.


----------



## Occam (25 May 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> There are rules for locations where no stop line is painted.



Yup, section 136(1)(a) of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, to be precise.

136.  (1)  Every driver or street car operator approaching a stop sign at an intersection,

(a) shall stop his or her vehicle or street car at a marked stop line or, if none, then immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk or, if none, then immediately before entering the intersection; and

(b) shall yield the right of way to traffic in the intersection or approaching the intersection on another highway so closely that to proceed would constitute an immediate hazard and, having so yielded the right of way, may proceed.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (25 May 2011)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> 4. The stop sign is located about 1.5 to 2 meters behind where the steet intersects the next street.  Thus, *you must first stop at the sign and then move forward IOT see if it is safe to proceed*.  I did this and it was safe.



By your description, you did not stop *immediately before the intersection* (where you could see if there was any traffic coming) but at the stop sign which was placed a short distance from the intersection.  Also by your description, the MP was in a position to see the actual point where a vehicle would have entered the intersection and thus would have been able to see if you came to a full and complete stop immediately before the intersection.  Yes, most everyone thinks you have to stop "at the stop sign", but that is not actually correct.  I had a similar ticket (but not under GPTR) years ago.  I also thought exactly as you seem to be thinking.  I jumped through the same hoops that you are jumping to gather evidence to prove the policeman wrong, (including photos and diagrams).  I also fought the ticket.  When I presented my case to the court, the judge told me I was "legally" wrong, however because of the effort I took in proving being "Perry Mason", he dismissed the ticket.

Your mileage in your defence may differ.  If you accept that you actually committed the offence, pay the ticket; if you think (regardless of your acceptance of your wrongdoing) that you can win in court, go ahead and fight it.

There may also be a need to report this location to whatever authority is responsible for landscaping, signage, road maintenance, etc.  You may not be the first offender to be ticketed for doing a rolling stop through that intersection.  Might be the reason the MP was sitting there waiting for you.  In my case, it was a lucrative location for the constable.  After I bitched, there were some changes to signage and road marking as well as some removal of foliage.


----------



## Scoobs (25 May 2011)

Thanks everyone for their comments/advice.  

Blackadder1916, I didn't even think about the fact that perhaps the stop sign needs to be moved and that the trees trimmed, etc.  I will try to get this changed so that a similar thing doesn't happen to anyone else in the future.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 May 2011)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> Thanks everyone for their comments/advice.
> 
> Blackadder1916, I didn't even think about the fact that perhaps the stop sign needs to be moved and that the trees trimmed, etc.  I will try to get this changed so that a similar thing doesn't happen to anyone else in the future.



Commit the geography to film before you proceed further. A clear visual record of the area might be handy later.


----------



## Romanmaz (29 May 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> Yup, section 136(1)(a) of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, to be precise.
> 
> 136.  (1)  Every driver or street car operator approaching a stop sign at an intersection,
> 
> ...


Yup, driving school 101 right there, I don't know how some people have a drivers license without knowing that.


----------



## George Wallace (29 May 2011)

Romanmaz said:
			
		

> Yup, driving school 101 right there, I don't know how some people have a drivers license without knowing that.



Perhaps they got their licence in Ottawa.  In Ottawa, the "Quebec STOP" is the norm, people driving compact cars think that they are driving 18 wheelers when they turn at intersections and signal lights are optional.  That or many people who are buying BMW's and Mercedes can't afford the extra cash for them (signal lights).


----------



## Infanteer (29 May 2011)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> Simply put, no, I won't "just pay the friggin ticket".  I know that I did a proper stop.



Agreed.  Why accept what may have been an honest error on the MPs part and accept guilt for the sake of it.  We have a courts system for a reason.

If you didn't do it, then you shouldn't be getting a fine.  I'd think if you were going to the court, you'd want:

1.  Your driving history; and
2.  Photographs of the stop sign and the officer's position

That way, it's more than just a he-said, she-said argument as to what went on and you can make a reasonable case that the LEO made an error.


----------



## Nauticus (29 May 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Agreed.  Why accept what may have been an honest error on the MPs part and accept guilt for the sake of it.  We have a courts system for a reason.
> 
> If you didn't do it, then you shouldn't be getting a fine.  I'd think if you were going to the court, you'd want:
> 
> ...



Photographs of the traffic sign would help. Photographs of the MP's position may be more difficult, because you can't prove (or even know for certain) where he saw you from.


----------



## George Wallace (29 May 2011)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> ..... Photographs of the MP's position may be more difficult, because you can't prove (or even know for certain) where he saw you from.



True.  His exact location may be hard to accurately determine, but in a case where he would have to be "right on the STOP sign in order to see it", which would be obvious to all who stopped at that sign, his location further up the street could be roughly demonstrated with photos from various distances.   These could demonstrate that the actual sign and stop being made by a motorist were obstructed from his view.


----------



## DCRabbit (29 May 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps they got their licence in Ottawa.  In Ottawa, the "Quebec STOP" is the norm, people driving compact cars think that they are driving 18 wheelers when they turn at intersections and signal lights are optional.  That or many people who are buying BMW's and Mercedes can't afford the extra cash for them (signal lights).



 Yes.. in order to activate that turn signal lever, they'd have to let go of their cell phones. Here in Ottawa there is only one rule of traffic.. 'Me first'. Everything else is optional.


----------



## Nauticus (29 May 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> True.  His exact location may be hard to accurately determine, but in a case where he would have to be "right on the STOP sign in order to see it", which would be obvious to all who stopped at that sign, his location further up the street could be roughly demonstrated with photos from various distances.   These could demonstrate that the actual sign and stop being made by a motorist were obstructed from his view.



This is true. Plus, I'd rather provide "too many" photographs as opposed to too few (missing something that could legitimately be helpful to your case), so you could always provide those photographs and let the judge decide.


----------



## Romanmaz (29 May 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps they got their licence in Ottawa.  In Ottawa, the "Quebec STOP" is the norm, people driving compact cars think that they are driving 18 wheelers when they turn at intersections and signal lights are optional.  That or many people who are buying BMW's and Mercedes can't afford the extra cash for them (signal lights).


That's pretty funny, but true, I drive a BMW 07  : and you'd actually be surprised how many different options they have just for the turn signals in that car, if your not tech savvy it can get pretty confusing.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 May 2011)

Romanmaz said:
			
		

> That's pretty funny, but true, I drive a BMW 07  : and you'd actually be surprised how many different options they have just for the turn signals in that car, if your not tech savvy it can get pretty confusing.



Down is left, up is right or vice-versa if the stick is on the other side... can't be that confusing. Even for a BMW driver.  >


----------



## Romanmaz (30 May 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Down is left, up is right or vice-versa if the stick is on the other side... can't be that confusing. Even for a BMW driver.  >


 :'( That hurts man, don't be jealous  
They actually have different speed settings and different options for changing lanes and turning depending on the amount of pressure you apply.


----------



## medicineman (30 May 2011)

So does my Accent - light touch = lanes, touch with click = turn.  Don't need speed settings - as long as it continues going click /clock, it means it's working and doesn't need a new bulb or fuse.

MM


----------



## Romanmaz (30 May 2011)

medicineman said:
			
		

> So does my Accent - light touch = lanes, touch with click = turn.  Don't need speed settings - as long as it continues going click /clock, it means it's working and doesn't need a new bulb or fuse.
> 
> MM


Its sounds like u wanna race  :threat


----------



## Good2Golf (30 May 2011)

Romanmaz said:
			
		

> Its sounds like u wanna race  :threat



He may just win...it appears that he knows how to use his turn signals.


----------



## mariomike (30 May 2011)

Romanmaz said:
			
		

> Its sounds like u wanna race  :threat



Best to avoid Toronto for speeding. It, reportedly, has more speed traps than Los Angeles, Montreal and New York -- combined.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (30 May 2011)

Thinking about this thread brought this to mind.

The OP stated that he was cited for an infraction of the Government Property Traffic Regulations.



			
				Scoobs said:
			
		

> . . . . . .   The ticket is for, exact quote:
> 
> "Fail to obey traffic sign - stop sign"
> 
> I was NOT given the offence notice under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, which surprised me as I thought that this applied on an Ontario base.  Rather, *I was given a ticket under the "Government Property Traffic Regulations".  The section was nine (9).*  . . . . . .



In later discussion about what constituted the proper manner in which to respond to a stop sign, the Ontario Highway Traffic Act (OHTA) was quoted.



			
				Occam said:
			
		

> Yup, section 136(1)(a) of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, to be precise.
> 
> 136.  (1)  Every driver or street car operator approaching a stop sign at an intersection,
> 
> ...



The OHTA clearly defines what is required of that law, however the OP was not cited for an infraction of that law.  The Government Property Traffic Regulations is worded differently.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._887/FullText.html



> TRAFFIC SIGNS AND DEVICES
> 
> 7. (1) The Minister of Public Works, the Minister of any department having the control or management of any government property, or the Commissioner may mark or erect or cause to be marked or erected on any government property, traffic signs or devices
> 
> ...



There is no other reference in the regulations about what a stop sign means (unlike the provincial legislation).  Lacking a definition about where to stop for a stop sign, the OP "may" (a big may) be able to make the case that he did stop at the sign (where it could be surmised that the GPTR required him to stop) and thus was not in contravention of the regulations.  For those who would point out that the requirements of the OHTA would apply in the absence of more detail in the GPTR, the following section of the regulations would apply.



> COMPLIANCE WITH PROVINCIAL AND MUNICIPAL LAWS
> 6. (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3), no person shall operate a vehicle on a highway otherwise than in accordance with the laws of the province and the municipality in which the highway is situated.
> 
> (2) No person shall operate a vehicle on the South Klondike Highway otherwise than in accordance with the laws of the Yukon Territory.
> ...


----------



## Romanmaz (30 May 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> He may just win...it appears that he knows how to use his turn signals.


Haha yea he can tell me if mine are working right when I fly by him :nod:


----------



## Scoobs (31 May 2011)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Thinking about this thread brought this to mind.
> 
> The OP stated that he was cited for an infraction of the Government Property Traffic Regulations.
> 
> ...



This is what has been part of the problem.  I cannot find much info about the GPTR.  However, about the definition of a stop, the base that I work at has an internet (not intranet) site that has a link to the MP section.  They define what a stop is and it is pretty damn close to what the OHTA states.  However, a website does not equal a law.  I have found out that para 9 is a "catch all" type of charge since it does not specifically refer to a stop sign, but rather disobeying any traffic sign, etc.  Also, I found out that only tickets under para 20 of the GPTR show up on an Ontario driver's abstract.  Section 20 is speeding.  I wasn't charged under speeding.

The 15 days are up this week and I must make a decision.  Fight the ticket and receive justice plus spend more money than the actual cost of the ticket (the court date will be after I'm posted and it would cost more for me to come back than the cost of the ticket) or just pay the damn ticket and spend less.  This is really sad when my decision will most likely revolve more around money than justice!  This whole situation has seriously eroded my faith in our "justice" system.  Most of my police friends (civy and MP) tell me that it is very hard to fight a ticket.  Why is that?  Aren't we supposed to be innocent and not presumed to be guilty???  Seems to me that traffic court looks at it as you're guilty and then you prove your innocence.


----------



## Loachman (31 May 2011)

Wait until you have to defend your innocence in a criminal case, win, and still have to sell your house to pay for the legal bill, like some people that I know have had to do.


----------



## Infanteer (31 May 2011)

...the natural consequence of allowing our justice system to become the domain of specialists who charge hundreds of dollars an hour.  Pretty sad when it is all but inaccessible to the average citizen....


----------

