Speed Camera News Winnipeg: Illegal school zone used to ticket motorists
http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/columnists/tom_brodbeck/2010/10/14/15697776.html
Another cash grab
Illegal school zone used to ticket motorists
By TOM BRODBECK, Winnipeg Sun
Last Updated: October 14, 2010 10:22pm
The City of Winnipeg set up an illegal school zone on Henderson Highway which police have been using to ticket motorists with photo radar, a judicial justice of the peace has ruled.
This is the case of David MacKay, who received a $215 photo radar ticket in an area police claim is a school zone on Henderson Highway just north of Bonner Avenue.
The ticket was thrown out of court last week.
There are signs designating the area as a school zone. But according to court transcripts obtained by the Winnipeg Sun, judicial justice of the peace Weldon Klassen ruled that not only did the photo radar operator not know where the school in question was, he said the zone itself violates the province’s Highway Traffic Act.
Must be adjacent
“You can’t simply put a school zone sign up there if the school’s not adjacent to the sign,” Klassen said in court.
Klassen said the Highway Traffic Act defines a school zone on a roadway as one where the school is adjacent to the posted signs.
In this case, the school in question — John G. Stewart School — is located about 200 metres east of Henderson Highway up a winding road and past several other buildings.
“I believe the officer when he says it’s got the school signs posted, but to me it’s a question of whether or not it’s properly posted,” said Klassen. “And having ironically just read this portion of the Highway Traffic Act just a few moments ago during the last recess, I was looking at the definition of a school zone and I found that according to the Highway Traffic Act, the school does have to be adjacent to the signage …”
Which means the city set up a bogus school zone for the sole purpose of deploying photo radar and cashing in on the easy money it would yield.
Photo radar operator William Storry testified in court he was deployed to the area by police because he claims there had been complaints to police of speeding in the area.
The Crown did not submit any evidence to that effect.
“(Police) established that it was a valid zone to deploy and instructed us to deploy in this particular school zone,” said Storry.
“But where is the school?” asked Klassen.
Storry didn’t know.
“I’m not sure where it is, you honour,” said Storry. “All I know is the City of Winnipeg has signs posted on both ends where the police went out there, inspected and instructed us to deploy there.”
Klassen concluded photo radar units didn’t have the legislative authority to ticket motorists at that location because the school zone was set up illegally.
“The officer wasn’t properly deployed in the area, so I do have to dismiss the charge,” Klassen ruled.
So here we have the city now setting up at least one bogus and illegal “school zone” for the sole purpose of revenue generation. Under the Highway Traffic Act, photo radar can only be used in school zones, construction zones and playground areas.
Obviously the city is now trying to get around those constraints by creating an illegitimate school zone to raise photo radar revenues.
And this is all about safety?
Right.
A spokesperson for the Crown’s office said the prosecution branch is still reviewing the case to determine whether it will appeal.
I’d say anyone who got a photo radar ticket along that stretch should ask for their money back.
And maybe Mayor Sam Katz could tell us why his officials set up an illegal school zone to pad city coffers.
It would be a good time to come clean on this as Winnipeggers get set to vote in a Oct. 27 election.
For more, visit Brodbeck’s blog Raise a Little Hell at winnipegsun.com. Reach Tom by e-mail at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .
Subscribe to this comment's feedwritten by zv , March 18, 2011
I just paid the fine for speeding through a school zone.
i was so nervous-first time in court, and, sadly, claiming 'entrappment' did not work out. but i thought it was worth a shot since the closest speed sign was 16 blocks before the school, and was similar to two other setup stations where the 'officer' set up afterwards. anyway,
during my trial i asked the officer if he knew where the posted speed limit was and he said no to all three situations, but then he said that he assumed it was 50 since in winnipeg you are supposed to go 50 if you do not know what the posted limit is.
the judge ruled that there was no entrapment and , well here i am...
oh. the judge also stated that mobile cameras can be set up in 3 locations, schol, construction, and did not know the third---someone else in court had to tell her...
i am still so mad and frustrated.....
Articles Menu
Find Info
Latest Comments
Member Login
