Do speed cameras impact CVOR safety ratings?
Does this situation seem familiar? Long after what you remember as an uneventful drive, you receive a letter in the mail stating you were caught speeding by a speed camera and you are given a hefty fine.
If this rings a bell, you are not alone as reports estimate that the City of Toronto alone collected more than $34 million in the first two years of its speed camera program alone.
With proponents claiming that speed cameras increase safety and detractors arguing they are nothing but municipal cash grabs, speed cameras in Canada remain a hot button issue. Quebec courts even temporally declared them hearsay evidence in 2016.
As speed cameras become more prevalent, drivers should be aware of the implications of being caught by one. Although being photographed by a speed camera in Toronto will lead to a charge against the owner of the vehicle, no demerit points will be assessed against the owner or driver of the vehicle, which would otherwise have occurred had the driver been stopped by the police and issued a ticket.
While speed cameras are able to determine the identity of the vehicle breaking the law, they can’t determine who is driving it. This means that, although the vehicle’s owner will be charged and fined, the driver will not receive a charge, fine or demerit points.
Will speed camera conviction affect CVOR?
A conviction for a speed camera charge against the owner of the vehicle will not appear on the owner’s driver’s record, which means that such a charge typically won’t affect insurance premiums. However, if the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle, a conviction for a speed camera offence is treated like any other speeding contrary to section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act, and will impact the operator’s Commercial Vehicle Operator Registration (CVOR) by way of the imposition of conviction points.
This is because conviction points contribute to the carrier’s overall violation rate which in turn may have an impact on the carrier’s safety rating. A carrier will receive one conviction point for a driver speeding 1-10 km/h above the posted limited, two points for speeding 11-20 km/h above and five points for driving 21 km/h above.
Best approach: Obey the limit
To avoid speed camera charges, drivers should, obviously, not engage in speeding. Importantly, however, speed cameras can only be placed in school zones or designated community safety zones and their location must be openly identified via a “Municipal Speed Camera in Use” sign displayed either at, or immediately before, the location of the speed camera.
However, police officers sitting at speed traps and physically operating a radar gun are not required to warn approaching vehicles of their presence and, accordingly, the best protection for motorists is still to respect posted speed limits and traffic signs.
The takeaway is that the owner of the truck will be the party charged with any speed camera violation and a conviction will result in conviction points assigned to their CVOR. As such, carriers should ensure their drivers understand the risks of being caught speeding by way of a speed camera and should consider contesting charges to protect their CVOR safety rating.
Have your say
This is a moderated forum. Comments will no longer be published unless they are accompanied by a first and last name and a verifiable email address. (Today's Trucking will not publish or share the email address.) Profane language and content deemed to be libelous, racist, or threatening in nature will not be published under any circumstances.
I’d be interested to learn more about the success rates of contesting a speeding ticket, camera or otherwise. Is this a useful thing to do, or are you just paying money for a lawyer and you’re going to get dinged anyway?
-
Hi Brian,
It was just announced that the city of Toronto is planning to remove the ability to fight these tickets!
-
Brian Take a moment to read my comments here and that the MTO proposed changes in 2022 that changes these “tickets” to Administrative Monetary Penalty (AMP) No longer defendable just an invoice now. Points will still hit your CVOR if the vehicle that caused the offence is a commercial vehicle.
Thanks for this informative article Noah!
Regardless of what anyone thinks of speed cameras as a cash grab or otherwise we seem to forget the underlying issue here. The law states on a sign how fast we are allowed to travel through cities, towns and all areas. This has been posted for a reason, safety. Our society has taken the mislead stance that its not breaking the law if you don’t get caught……wrong!!
Breaking the law is breaking the law and if you do it you will be penalized. There’s no right way to do the wrong thing. We should all be thankful that there is still somebody holding us all accountable for breaking the law. Over the years, speeding has been proven and known to be dangerous and at times fatal.
Instead of trying to figure out ways to keep these fines and all from impacting our licenses and insurance rates by hitting our driving record I have a better solution…..slow down and obey the laws that our own tax money pays the very people who make and enforce these laws!
We would then not have to worry about being penalized and the world would be a much safer place on our streets and roads!!
A ticket for 1 km/h over the limit? Really? That does not make an allowance for variations in speedometers which are not exactly calibrated like speed cameras and radar are.
Good afternoon Noah:
Thank you for sharing this important message with my fellow Truck News readers.
To put my response in perspective, please know that I am a retired MTO Officer, (who participated in the development and implementation of the CVOR system in Ontario). I am currently providing legal services exclusively to the transportation industry in Canada.
In my opinion this unannounced MTO policy unfairly attaches points to a Carrier’s CVOR Record for charges related to photo radar cameras and as Chris mentioned below, red light cameras. This has caused significant issues in our industry.
First, these types of violations are caused by drivers, but the Carrier ends up being charged and penalized when convicted, causing potentially negative CVOR & Insurance implications. Typically the driver is then subjected to the company’s internal discipline program, which would have occurred despite the implementation of this CVOR “point” policy. Double jeopardy?
Secondly, as you mentioned Noah, Carriers should consider contesting these violations. However, these challenges, in my experience, are quite difficult to win. The Provincial Courts in Ontario deem these charges to be “absolute liability” offences; which basically means that the only defence we have would be a technical one eg. the radar unit was not functioning properly etc. In this situation, the Carrier is denied the defense of “due diligence” which basically means that the Carrier did every thing reasonable to prevent the occurrence of this offence, and when notified of the offence, made changes to their safety system to ensure that this event never happens again. In order to properly dispute this policy, the defendant would have to present a Charter challenge, which I’m sure you know, would be an extremely expensive undertaking with no guarantee of success.
This issue is further exacerbated by the fact that some Courts do not allow the Carrier to present a defense at all. In these cases the Court depends wholly upon the “photo” that is generated by the camera. There is no Officer or other witness in attendance to present the case on behalf of the Crown.
While I believe that photo radar and speed cameras can help make our roads safer, I also recognize that these enforcement strategies generate significant revenues for our cash strapped municipalities. Couldn’t the government achieve both results without burdening responsible Carriers with further punitive interventions?
Also as of July 1, 2022 the owner of the vehicle will be imposed an Administrative Monetary Penalty (AMP) for these 4 sections of the Highway Traffic Act.
1. Subsection 128 (1) – Speeding
2. Subsection 144 (18) – Red light Camera
3. Subsection 166 (1) – Pass a street car improperly
4. Subsections 175 (11.1) and (12.1) – Pass stopped school bus
No longer will the owner be issued a “ticket” which currently arrives in the mail and allows the person charged to request a trial and dispute the allegation.
This new system means that the recipient will not be entitled to a trial where the prosecutor will be required to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The AMP system is much like an invoice – the only hearing you are entitled to is where you dispute the amount of the
fine/invoice. For example, if the vehicle captured by an automated enforcement system was stolen at the time of the infraction, then the owner could request a hearing where they would be entitled to seek a suspension of the fine based on the fact that the vehicle was not being operated with the owner’s consent.
The problem for operators (holders of the CVOR) is that the offences will continue to impact against the “owner” or the CVOR holder regardless of the fact that these photo-generated AMPS are not disputable.
According to the MTO the following remains the policy in terms of CVOR conviction points.
“Any violation of the Highway Traffic Act by an operator or its drivers will continue to be reflected on the operator’s safety record as these violations are indicators of safety risk. The weighting of these offences will continue to be assessed in the same manner as they are today.”
Thank you for highlighting this issue. Red light cameras have a similar impact, but with 5 points for the CVOR