What is a ticket for parking within 9m of highway?

[Twister]

I got a ticket at about 580 duplex (see photo) I find a tag saying : 40 bucks offence- park 9m of intersecting highway contrary bla bla.

I was parked where the white car(or silver) is in the picture. The pole on the right shows the little sign not to park on the right of the sign but I was on the left...

[/URL] Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]

 

[Mr Deeds]

Too close to the intersection or its getting near the end of the month they are trying to make quota.

 

[rhuarc29]

I got a ticket for parking at the end of my own driveway in a way that "obstructed the view of drivers at an intersection". My house was second from the corner.

My own aside, yeah, you shouldn't have to pay that.

 

[John Henry]

Too close to the intersection or its getting near the end of the month they are trying to make quota.

You shouldn't have gotton that ticket . Now if you were passed that pole towards the intersection OK but your not . I'd fight it and take that pic to court . Monthly quota is right .

 

[basketcase]

Parking that close to an intersection is against the HTA but considering the sign clearly shows parking to the left is legal, you should win the fight (if it is worth your $40).

 

[CapitalGuy]

Fight it and bring that picture with you. Better if its a picture of your own car though.

 

[Viggo Rasmussen]

Print out this thread and read it to the judge, he'll see TERB is correct. :thumb:

 

[masterchief]

Parking that close to an intersection is against the HTA but considering the sign clearly shows parking to the left is legal, you should win the fight (if it is worth your $40).

Actually all you see in a sign saying the right of the pole is a no-parking zone. If there is no sign present then the basic rules of Toronto Municpal Bylaws for Parking automatically apply which is 9 metres from an intersection.
http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/parking/regulations.htm#sig

 

[CapitalGuy]

^^ What are you trying to say, MC? That he is guilty regardless of the sign? That may be technically correct (I don't know) but I would think showing such a picture in front of a judge would result in a reasonable judge agreeing that the driver had every reason to believe parking was authorized to the left of the sign, almost that it's (presumably unintentional) entrapment to ticket a guy parked on the favourable side of a sign like that. I'd give it a shot for sure.

 

[masterchief]

^^ What are you trying to say, MC? That he is guilty regardless of the sign? That may be technically correct (I don't know) but I would think showing such a picture in front of a judge would result in a reasonable judge agreeing that the driver had every reason to believe parking was authorized to the left of the sign, almost that it's (presumably unintentional) entrapment to ticket a guy parked on the favourable side of a sign like that. I'd give it a shot for sure.

If you bothered to look at the link I posted , there is a whole list of parking offences that do not require signs in the City of Toronto. So again, there is no sign so the bylaw about being 9m from an intersection automatically applies, ignorance of the law is not a valid reason. By your rational since there is no sign about the illegality of parking infront of a hydrant people can claim the same excuse. Also, the OP even said that the picture is not his car, but lets say he had a picture, the JP wont take it as evidence as there is no proof that he didnt move the car before taking it.

 

[CapitalGuy]

Rationale, not rational.

But I only post that to be pedantic, because clearly you're just looking for an argument. The fire hydrant analogy is ridiculous, as the fire hydrant itself is the 'sign' not to park there. The picture as presented by the OP is misleading and like I said, a reasonable judge would see that and likely side with the OP. But you don't care because you are either just looking for an argument, or are thick as fuck. My guess is you just want to argue, so I'll leave you reply with some post that you think is (either) witty or intelligent, but which will convince other readers that I'm wrong and that you are, in fact, simply thick as fuck, then I'll sit back and ignore you while you stew in an impotent rage because I'm ignoring you after totally owning you in this reply.

ps. I love you.

 

[groggy]

The 9m bylaw is applied totally at the whim of the ticketing officer. Most times they don't care, but if they are low on quota watch out. Good luck fighting it, though someone should try to make a move to take the whole bylaw down, since it is applied so unevenly. What you need to do is find a ticketing officer and try to record him answering why or when he tickets and compare that with another officer to show that the law is so vague as to be impossible to enforce both by the number of spots that would disappear and the uneven enforcing of the bylaw.

 

[Adam_hadam]

I got a ticket at about 580 duplex (see photo) I find a tag saying : 40 bucks offence- park 9m of intersecting highway contrary bla bla.

I was parked where the white car(or silver) is in the picture. The pole on the right shows the little sign not to park on the right of the sign but I was on the left...

[/URL] Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]

I live in the hood and the meter maids are all pricks. There is permit parking midnight to 10 am, I've seen them tag cars at 9:58am on sidestreets. Its just a cash grab. Next time go to the pay lot across at Duplex/Castlefield or valet parking at North 44'( is also cheaper than a ticket.

 

[Anynym]

masterchief has it exactly right.

There are a few things to keep in mind: first, any hearing would be before a Justice of the Peace, not a Judge. The level of legal training is different, and their tolerance for bs excuses is also different. They do understand that the purpose of the 9m restriction is safety: a driver turning right from the oncoming street needs a reasonable distance to determine that the right-most lane (into which he should be turning) is not in fact a lane of traffic but rather is, or is being used as, a parking lane.

Regardless, the sign as shown in the picture does NOT indicate that parking is permitted to the left of the sign: it merely confirms that parking is NOT permitted to the right of the sign. There are certain parking restrictions for which "signage" is given only at the city boundary (i.e. on the "Welcome to Toronto" sign) and not at every instance to which such restrictions apply.

 

[Moraff]

I had a similar ticket here in the Hammer. I just went to the bylaw office and explained that I was unaware of the bylaw and asked for forgiveness of the ticket. After giving him the chance to give me the whole "ignorance is not an excuse" yada yada he waived the ticket.

 

[oldjones]

OK Twister, now you know the answer to your question and the offence you clearly did commit. The second phase, which helpful souls above have already begun, is Getting Off. Go to the ticket window and politely plead, and if that doesn't work, get your court date and take the pic showing where the sign is and what it says and hope the JP also forgot his basic driver ed. and sympathiszes with you.

But please be smarter in future and leave it to someone else to block the view at intersections.

 

[Twister]

Thanks for the various replies, I am going to court to see if the JP will do something. Yes Adam that area is the worst for tickets, I see them all the time. I wonder if they get bonuses from tghe owner of that big parking lot at the corner.