For those following the Grant Ave photo radar issue, here's an update.

To begin, the main court challenge has been set and will take place on May 4. At the trial, photo radar watchdog group Wise Up Winnipeg will have a lawyer challenge the accuracy of the ticket in question and will cross examine an expert witness. I can't say much about the defence argument at this time, but I do feel good about the defence case being put forward.

Unfortunately, for those who have tickets prior to that date, we face a nearly guaranteed loss in traffic court.

In my own case, I defended myself on March 5th and argued how I believed the machine's readings may not be accurate.

I tabled information from the Queensland Police Department's (Australia) web site which clearly shows it does not enforce photo radar in the same manner the city of Winnipeg is doing as it can lead to inaccurate results. In short, Queensland recommends against having metal objects (signs, bus shelters, street lights, etc.) in between the photo radar vehicle and the vehicle it is assessing. Click here to see their site - http://www.police.qld.gov.au/rti/published/policies/traffic-manual/06/Ch_06_PT2.htm

But in Winnipeg, at the new Grant Ave location, there is a strip of land in between where the photo radar vehicle sits and traffic passing along Grant Ave. The strip of land in question has a number of metallic objects on it - street signs, street lights, etc (see pic below.)

Like Winnipeg, Queensland is also using Gatso technology. The justice of the peace (like a judge) wouldn't allow my web site print outs as evidence, accepting the crown's claim that it's not the same technology; even though both jurisdictions use type 24 (AUS). I believed the crown attorney (articling student) claimed the models were slightly different.

The justice of the peace also rejected the evidence on the basis that it was from a web site and thus the author of the material could not be questioned. I noted that it wasn't reasonable for someone facing a $267 photo radar ticket to pay to fly someone in from Australia to fight the ticket...but lost that battle as well.

I also supplied a manual from photo radar equipment that was previously used in British Columbia (too large to post, email me if you want a copy - [email protected].) The manual also recommends against what the city of Winnipeg is doing, noting:

"Metallic signs, highway barriers, walls and similar structures located in the radar beam can cause interference with the radar beam."

I filed a freedom of information request to get a copy of the manual from the City of Winnipeg, but quess what the response was? If you guessed "they claim they don't have it" you would be correct. Incredibly, the City of Winnipeg lets a private company print out photo radar tickets, but it doesn't even have a copy of the manufacturer's manual to ensure it is complying with the instructions on how to use the equipment.

In other words,  two jurisdictions that recommend against what the city of Winnipeg is doing as it can lead to inaccurate readings, the city didn't even supply the manual it uses and that didn't cast enough doubt in the Justice of the Peace's mind. If you're wondering about the blockbuster case the crown put forward, it consisted of a reading from a photo radar machine and the testimony from a photo radar operator who acknowledged he isn't an expert in photo radar technology.

Thus, as I questioned the accuracy of the machine, he wasn't able to talk about metal objects and their impact as he isn't an expert in that field. Therefore, we're all just supposed to trust the readings from the photo radar equipment even though it too is subject to error.

During my trial I also noted that the Grant Ave location in question is much wider than other four lane photo radar locations in Winnipeg. After all, unlike Portage Ave, the Grant location does not have four continuous lanes, there is a strip of grass in between the two lanes on the service road and the two lanes on Grant. I asked the operator how wide a set of roads his equipment can handle, but incredibly he didn't know.

For those who have trials before the May 4 case (or its verdict), here are a few things to keep in mind.

1) We've heard from many people who have gotten off their tickets as the photo radar operator did not show. 

2) The crown has been offering some people discounts for switching their plea to guilty. However, see point three

3) When the Bishop Grandin photo radar debacle occurred a few years ago, the provincial government refused to provide refunds for those who had paid their tickets. Thus, it might be hard for someone to press for a refund (If we're victorious) if they accept a discount. Conversely, by challenging a ticket and losing, you could have a better chance of pushing for a refund. (Note: I'm not a lawyer so take this for what it is - a gut thought from someone who isn't a lawyer)

Finally, the photo radar contract is up for renewal this year so it's important for citizens to speak out! We need to tell the city to go back to having real police enforce speed limits. After all, real police actually pull dangerous drivers over and can see if they're drunk, on drugs, driving a stolen car, etc.

Here is a list of council contact info...speak out!

Mayor Katz - [email protected]
Scott Fielding – sfielding@winnipeg.ca
Jeff Browaty – [email protected]
Justin Swandel – [email protected]
Grant Nordman – [email protected]
Ross Eadie – [email protected]
Jenny Gerbasi – [email protected]
John Orlikow – [email protected]
Devi Sharma – [email protected]
Harvey Smith – [email protected]
Thomas Steen – [email protected]
Russ Wyatt – [email protected]
Mike Pagtakhan – mpagtakhan@winnipeg.ca
Dan Vandal – [email protected]
Brian Mayes – [email protected]
Paula Havixbeck – phavixbeck@winnipeg.ca