WiseUpWinnipeg.

com

Monthly Newsletter
January 2013 WUW In Court Over Missing Sign
Required Speed Reduction Sign Missing Over 4 Months
Photo enforcement tickets are issued by the thousands throughout Winnipeg but one street in particular stands out. Grant Ave is one of the streets being reviewed to potentially have the speed raised. In the meantime, the limit remains inadequately low at 50 km/h which has helped lead to the camera at Wilton and the photo radar at Nathaniel being the top two photo ticket producers in the city. Winnipeg Police claim that speeding is a major problem on Grant. "They're still speeding like crazy. It's a big problem speed area," says Winnipeg Police-Winnipeg Free Press Dec 13, 2011. So, if speeding is such a problem on Grant that such aggressive enforcement is warranted, wouldn't maintaining speed signs be a major priority for safety? In reality, the opposite is true. The speed reduction sign on Grant near Stafford was removed during light standard replacement on July 12, 2012 and remained missing until Nov 27 after a WUW protest. (pictured above) For over four months, this required speed reduction sign was absent during a period when thousands of unfair tickets were issued to unknowing drivers. This month, WUW fought in traffic court over the missing sign. The judge disallowed all of the pictures showing the sign's absence as well as the City and Hydro documents that stated when the sign was removed and replaced. It came down to witness testimony at which point the photo radar operator lied saying the sign was present. The case was lost. The City and police know the sign was missing, but do not want to surrender the money. We are now in the process of locating funds to hire a lawyer for a March 1 trial. Hopefully justice will prevail at that time. In the meantime, plead not guilty to all tickets.

By: Chris Sweryda

In This Issue
Page 1 WUW in Court over Missing Sign Page 2 W5 Features Unfair Traps Many Speed Limits May Increase Page 3 City Removes Speed Limit Signing Page 4 Quick Notes Missing Signs Don't Matter Page 5 New Photo Laser Guns on the Road Plans for the New Month Links to Media Stories Page 6 & Page 7 My Experience in Traffic Court (Submission)

Present summer 2011

Missing July-Nov 2012

MONTHLY NEWSLETTER | Issue 2013-01

Page 2

W5 Features Unfair Traps

We've been saying it for years; Winnipeg's traffic enforcement is about money and not safety. This problem is finally gaining national exposure. The piece featured Inkster and McPhillips which is one of Winnipeg's most prominent enforcement abuses.

Click Here To View Story

Many Speed Limits May Increase

Highway Traffic Board Reviewing Low Speed Limits on Divided Roads
North American standard for setting speed limits is to use the 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic. This is the speed that 85% of drivers will travel at or below. The City of Winnipeg claims to follow this standard when setting limits. Many Limits Too Low When a speed limit is set too low, accident potential increases due to large speed differences. It is also known and recognized by the city that changing a speed limit has little effect on the flow (operating) speed of a roadway. This was proven in 1989 when the limit on Grant between Kenaston and Stafford was changed from 60 to 50 km/h. The average operating speeds on Grant only dropped to 63 km/h from 65 km/h. Since this change, the city's engineers have recommended changing the limit back both in 1991 and 2003 but were turned down by politicians who instead opted to install speed cameras. Recognizing that many limits are too low, in December, the Highway Traffic Board held public hearings regarding many possible speed limit increases. Roads under review for increases are Broadway, Corydon, Dugald, Grant, Inkster, Kenaston, Main, Moray, Pembina Hwy, Provencher, Roblin and University Crescent. Effects On Enforcement Officials at the City of Winnipeg are opposing these changes. One of the claims is that people are always going to speed and if you raise a limit from 50 to 60 km/h, everyone will then do 70 km/h. This doesn't happen, but what does is a massive drop in ticket counts. When the limits on Century Street and the Disraeli Freeway were raised by 10 km/h, tickets dropped on average by 95%. The two cameras on these roads that were previously among the highest producing in the city issue very few tickets and one has recently been removed. Currently, the city's top three producing speed cameras are on roads that may see a speed increase. The roads under review account for 43% of intersection camera tickets in the city. They are also common hotspots for both police and photo radar enforcement.

If past history is any indication, Winnipeg could be about to loose 41% of photo tickets. It is very apparent why the city would be opposed to this change. WUW has spoken in favour of these changes and made a written submission to the Highway Traffic Board (HTB). Anyone willing to voice their opinion about these changes can and is encouraged to contact the HTB at 204-9458912.

MONTHLY NEWSLETTER | Issue 2013-01

Page 3

City Removing Speed Limit Signing

In Response to a Request for More Signing, Winnipeg Removes Signs
Who can argue against having more speed limit signs? Signs remind motorists to slow down and of the speed limit promoting a uniform flow of traffic increasing safety on the road. Shouldn't this be the goal? Well, apparently, it doesn't work that way in Winnipeg. A request was submitted on Nov 15, 2012 to the city to have speed limit signs installed on Hespeler Ave due to it being such a large and busy road running between two higher speed roads. Also, it has a very apparent speeding problem with a profitable intersection camera and daily photo radar. It was pointed out that despite the '50 unless otherwise posted,' rule, every major city will use Maximum 50 signs to serve as a reminder to drivers to slow down at problem speed areas such as Hespeler. It is a well known fact that photo radar rarely enforces on a road with speed limit signs. Of the 122 Maximum 50 speed signs in Winnipeg, only 6 are previous to radar locations. It is apparent why the City would have reservations about installing signs on Hespeler. The biggest mistake was to point out that McLeod Ave and Springfield Road already had Maximum 50 signs proving that they could be installed on Hespeler. The City's response came two weeks later at which point the City seemed to agree that the signing was inconsistent, but rather than install signs on Hespeler, the already existing signs on Springfield and McLeod were removed. Despite the City being too busy to replace the 206 missing school zone signs that have been reported, crews were out immediately to remove the speed signs. After the sign removal, Chris Sweryda began a petition on Springfield asking residents to support returning the speed limit signs. The petition was signed by 209 out of 279 houses or 75%. This overwhelming support should have been able to get the signs put back. On January 14, a cover letter and the petition was submitted to the Public Works Dept with

This sign on McLeod Ave westbound facing traffic leaving Raleigh was one of many signs removed.

Maximum 50 signs are very common in other cities.

several councillors and other officials receiving copies. To date, the city has not responded to the petition. Attempts were made to contact councillor Browaty but no calls have been returned. Chris also tried to speak at the community meeting for that area to present the petition, but councillor Browaty had to give approval which he did not. It appears that the City of Winnipeg feels this issue will eventually go away if it is ignored long enough. It is up to us as citizens to make sure this doesn't happen. We must contact our councillors and other city officials to demand more and better signing.

MONTHLY NEWSLETTER | Issue 2013-01

Page 4

Quick Notes
Don't Pay that Ticket
When a citizen pleads not guilty to a ticket, about 1/3 to 1/2 of the time the operator/police don't show for court and the ticket is dismissed. In some cases, police/operators that have left the province. They will never be in court, and any ticket they issued will be dismissed before the trial starts. Some people do win during trial, get a reduction from the crown or if they lose, get a reduction from the court. There are no court fees and the only way to lose is to send the money.

Missing Signs Don't Matter

Photo Enforcement Signs Not Required
WUW held a protest at the intersection of Henderson and Gilmore last October to draw attention to the absence of the photo enforcement signs at the camera intersection. The city had been first notified of the missing required signs on March 15, 2011 but failed to replace them.

Signs present - 2010

Signs missing - March 2011

Grant Update
We have not given up on our radar accuracy issue on Grant Ave. After we had demonstrated the inaccuracy, the crown stayed the charge to avoid a precedent. We are now fighting another ticket at that location and are awaiting a court date.

Knowing the signs were missing, the city put the camera back into service in January 2012 and issued hundreds of tickets and ignored all calls for the signs to be replaced. The signs are required under section 3C of the Provincial Conditions of Authority for the city to run photo enforcement. The signs are to reinforce the claimed deterrent nature of photo radar thereby promoting safety. Within hours of the media coverage on Oct 15, 2012, the city installed reinstalled one sign and claimed they were never aware of the signs' absence.

Message To Coun. Vandal

Councillor Vandal claims that the speed increase for Provencher is not safe for children and other road users. If he cares about safety, why has he shown no support for WUW's efforts to see proper speed signing? Provencher is only one of the many large 50 km/h roads that are largely unsigned with tickets issued by the thousands. It is a six lane divided road leaving Archibald which is two lane, undivided and 60 km/h. It doesn't make sense. If safety is so important, where are the speed limit signs?

WUW Protest - Oct 15, 2012

New Sign - Oct 16, 2012

When people approached the province about the tickets issued when the signs were missing, they were told to take their issue to court. A provincial magistrate accepted all evidence that the signs were missing but ruled that the signs are not required and the tickets were upheld. This is a blatant abuse of the public that doesn't happen outside the province.

MONTHLY NEWSLETTER | Issue 2013-01

Page 5

New Handheld Photo Laser Guns Hit The Streets

Photo Enforcement Can Now Occur Without a Vehicle Parked on the Street
As reported by CBC, a new form of photo enforcement has hit the streets this past month. Operators will now stand at the side of the road and aim a gun similar to the laser guns already used by police. These guns have a range of up to 600 m, but can only be used during daylight hours. They are fully equipped to aim and take a picture of a vehicle and do not require the use of a photo enforcement van anywhere on or near the road being enforced. The deterrence of seeing a photo vehicle on the road is removed with these guns. Currently, there are two of these guns being used around the city and there are plans to expand that number to four in the near future. School and playground zones that have never seen enforcement due to parking restrictions will now be enforced with this new technology, many of which are after improperly signed speed reductions. Corydon Ave east of Kelvin is a prime example of where that issue will take place. These new DraganCam laser guns were approved by the province around Christmas of 2012 and are going to be the biggest income generator since the illegal construction zone tickets in 2008. The 10 photo radar vehicles will still be used from 7:00 am to 9:00 pm.

For February
Our plans are to work on developing a new webpage. We want to be able to put all the information we have about road signing and amber light issues up for public viewing. We also want to create sections about enforcement and the traffic court system. If any of our readers have any webpage knowledge, we would gladly appreciate any assistance. Hopefully, all this will be done by mid March when we plan to get very aggressive with our mobile efforts.

Links To January Media Stories

New Photo Enforcement Equipment Hits the Streets
Winnipeg Free Press - Jan 2 (Click Here) Winnipeg Free Press - Jan 9 (Click Here) CBC - Jan 31 (Click Here)

Ambushing Drivers In Unfair Traps

Winnipeg Free Press - Jan 19 (Click Here) CTV's W5 - Jan 26 (Click Here)

Province Says No To Having Photo Radar Everywhere

Winnipeg Sun - Jane 25 (Click Here) Winnipeg Sun - Jan 30 (Click Here)

Contact Us:
www.wiseupwinnipeg.com info@wiseupwinnipeg.com Chris Sweryda - 204-801-9239 csweryda@hotmail.com Todd Dube - 204-795-5120 mediascene@mymts.net

MONTHLY NEWSLETTER | Issue 2013-01

Page 6

My Experience in Winnipeg Traffic Court

Submission by Randy (A Winnipeg driver):
I am safe driver with 7 merits and no traffic convictions in over 12 years. I obey all posted signs and Im not an aggressive driver. I got a photo radar ticket on Sept 27, 2012 at the corner of Grant at Nathaniel. I do not believe that I was speeding (64 in a 50) and pleaded not guilty. The advance speed reduction sign on Grant (50 ahead) was missing at the time I got the speeding ticket. I felt confidant that I would be able to plead my case in what I thought would be a fair court of law. This would be a new experience for me, as I was not aware of the practices of the photo radar operators who openly and willingly perjure themselves in court. I was under the assumption that a judge\magistrate was there to hear two cases and make a fair decision based on what both sides could present as their case. I was to find out that the judge in my case was anything but fair with respect to giving me the opportunity to adequately defend myself in a court of law and present the necessary evidence that could clearly prove my innocence. I would quickly come to realize that anything that could prove my innocence would be not allowed in court by the presiding judge. The following is my experience with the Winnipeg traffic court process and those involved. Its my hope that it will bring about public awareness of the unfair and corrupt practices of the Winnipeg traffic court and the efforts of the photo radar operators to hide the truth. Here is my experience: I arrived at the courthouse Jan 2013 with my wife present to act as my witness. She was with me at the time of the offence and could testify that the speed reduction sign was missing. I had documents from Manitoba Hydro and the city that attest to the speed reduction sign being missing during a period of time that included the date on which I was ticketed. I also had a witness present who could attest to having received those documents regarding the missing speed reduction sign. I had photos to back up my case. In the waiting room, I saw the photo radar operator being coached by a traffic cop on what to say in court and how to say it. As my court session began, I could see that the operator was noticeably nervous giving his testimony. I asked him if he had seen the advance speed zone warning as part of his setup checklist. He replied, Yes, which was impossible because it simply was not there. This and other parts of his testimony were quite simply false but all of it was allowed by the judge as fact without question. I now offered the photos showing that the speed reduction sign was missing. I stated that I would like to offer documents and the testimony of Chris Sweryda, who could offer evidence and testimony that the sign was missing on the day that I received my ticket. I made these requests and the judge flat out denied me the opportunity (without providing any reason) to call Chris as a witness. She further disallowed the documents that could clearly prove to her that the speed reduction sign was missing including pictures that show its absence. I then called my wife as a witness who testified that she had also observed no advance speed reduction sign being present. The judge simply dismissed it as a state of mind testimony and did not apply it to my innocent plea.

MONTHLY NEWSLETTER | Issue 2013-01

Page 7

My Experience in Winnipeg Traffic Court Cont'd

The judge also did something at my trial that very few individuals might be aware of. She led questioning in directions that the Crown prosecutor was not even offering. In other words, the judge and Crown prosecutor both took the position of prosecutors and were alternately presenting their cases for a guilty charge from different perspectives. In any court of law Id ever heard of, the judge hears both sides and makes a decision. In my case, the judge jumped in the ring with her own direction of prosecution to bolster the case of the Crown. A lawyer would have objected to this but I did not have a lawyer. Without lawyer representation, the judge and the Crown simply get away with whatever they like. Average law abiding citizens are not able to defend themselves without the adequate knowledge of what is or is not allowed in legal proceedings. The judge and the Crown exploit this advantage to ensure a guilty charge at the outcome of the trial, thereby ensuring that money gets collected. Summary; 1) I had clear evidence in the form of documents and photos to back up my case. The judge would not allow them. 2) I had a witness who could give testimony to the authenticity and credibility of the documents to show the speed reduction sign was missing. This witness was there waiting in the courtroom lobby, but the judge would not allow me to bring him in to offer his testimony that could prove my claim of innocence. 3) The mobile photo operator, although shaken and nervous, had no problem giving false testimony and perjuring himself in a court of law. The judge accepted all of it as fact without question. 4) The judge did not factor in my wifes testimony of the missing speed reduction sign on the day that I received the ticket. She simply dismissed it. 5) At the very end of my case, the judge clearly showed prejudice. During my entire trial, I made no mention whatsoever of wiseupwinnipeg. I was clearly and politely defending myself against the photo radar speeding ticket. At the end of my case, the judge stated, this is not a wiseupwinnipeg case. (Thereby making a prejudiced judgment that my case was about something other than the speeding ticket that I was there to contest). There is something very wrong when innocent, law-abiding citizens are rubber stamped with a guilty charge within the court system to supply the police with money for their budget. Quite clearly, the Winnipeg Traffic Court system, its judges and court personal are prejudiced, corrupt and unfair. Rather than a court of law, theyve simply become the cash collecting system for the police regardless of innocence or guilt. Since then, it has become very apparent that the City of Winnipeg has practiced removing/not replacing speed zone signs to increase photo radar revenue. The photo radar systems real objectives are not about safety or proper law enforcement. Its about collecting money, plain and simple. I encourage all drivers that feel that they are innocent to plead not guilty as I did. I consider it a moral obligation to expose the corruption in our court system and the unfair practices of the Winnipeg Police Services photo radar cash collecting system. Its interesting to note, that in the other cases that were presented, the operator did not show up meaning those tickets were dismissed. This seems to be the only way to win. Randy