Please advise,

The notes are missing time stamps / date and time

Also, there is no mention of the radar test logs?

Further, the police officer was travelling SB and I was travelling NB.

There were no street lights... the officer had to turn around on the two lane road. One for NB and One for SB traffic before pulling me.

Can i challenge that he may have lost sight of the vehicle from radar to pull over...?

The officer states i was arguing and was polite before the tik was issued. This is not true.

I was respectful at all times and only asked if i could see the radar reading.

I was asked to look into the Police car and only asked where was the 91?

He said 90 was the speed. I asked why and he claimed I was in argument.

I stated why i was told i was going at 91. He raised his voice ... I knew this was not going anywhere.

So i asked if i was free to leave and departed.

I don't think, this has any weight on fighting the ticket.

If you're going to fight it based on the radar you should've requested the radar manual in your disclosure or at least the pages relevant to testing.

seller wrote:

The notes are missing time stamps / date and time

His notes don't need a date at the top. If you need a date and time, it's listed on your ticket.

seller wrote:

Further, the police officer was travelling SB and I was travelling NB.

There were no street lights... the officer had to turn around on the two lane road. One for NB and One for SB traffic before pulling me.

Can i challenge that he may have lost sight of the vehicle from radar to pull over...?

Disclosure states "Traffic = OVIB"

seller wrote:

The officer states i was arguing and was polite before the tik was issued. This is not true.

I was respectful at all times and only asked if i could see the radar reading.

You're arguing. There's no need for you to see any radar device nor is the officer required to do so. The side of the road is not a courtroom. Take your ticket, leave, and request a trial.

seller wrote:

I was asked to look into the Police car and only asked where was the 91?

He said 90 was the speed. I asked why and he claimed I was in argument.

I stated why i was told i was going at 91. He raised his voice ... I knew this was not going anywhere.

You'll find your answer in the disclosure. "Activ. @ 91, Locked @ 90 ".

What does ovib mean?

I'd assume it's the officers abbreviation for "only vehicle inbound".

Either way, the officer writes "excel 90. activ.@ 91, locked @ 90. Sustained until pulled over. Driver said he didn't realize"

He didn't lose track of you. He got all his evidence while following you, which kills that argument.

bend wrote:

Either way, the officer writes "excel 90.....

Sorry, not excel 90. That wouldn't make any sense. I'm not sure what he wrote there.

To understand the noted TV is Target vechile

PC is police cruiser

Officer notes as follows:

TV = Red Compass

PC Speed = 65

Traffic = OVIB

PC going SB on Col by passed University saw TV going NB at high speed

Excel 90

Activ @ 91

Locked @ 90

Sustained until pulled over

Driver said he didn't realize

At first polite

when served reduced started questioning reading

asked to see radar

safe to so presented

Driver started arguing about locked speed was 91

Gave him ultimatum on reduced speed since arguing

Driver back tracked with w4 in PC

Please advise if this is a valid thought:

PC was SB. TV was travelling NB

Traffic is stated as TC is the only vehicle inbound.

If PC was doing 65 and TC was doing 90 in opposite directions.

Can the officer be challenged to explain how he maintained sight of the TV once, it past the PC in the opposite direction, while he was turning the police cruiser. Colonel by drive is a narrow two lane road. One for NB and one for SB. The only way to turn around is by a 3 point turn and pursuit TV before pull over.

Was the TV still travelling at 90km/h? When PC activated Pull over.

When did TV pull over? When did PC activate sirens for Pull over of TV.

When did officer identify TV as Red Compass jeep? Upon approaching or at pull over. There is no mention on when exactly TV was identified.

Notes mention that PC was going SB passed the university. The TV was locked on Radar after the PC passed the university.

It is only natural that the PC comes to a stop travelling in the SB lane. Perform 3 point turn and pursuit the TV travelling NB.

Now, did the pull over occur before or after the university? There is no clear indication of the location on the notes?

Officer mentions speed was sustained until pull over... was the radar activated once PC was in pursuit of TV in NB lane when behind the TV?

To understand the noted TV is Target vehicle

PC is police cruiser

Officer notes as follows:

TV = Blue escape

PC Speed = 65

Traffic = OVIB

PC going SB on Col by passed University saw TV going NB at high speed

Excel 90

Activ @ 91

Locked @ 90

Sustained until pulled over

Driver said he didn't realize

At first polite

when served reduced started questioning reading

asked to see radar

safe to so presented

Driver started arguing about locked speed was 91

Gave him ultimatum on reduced speed since arguing

Driver back tracked with w4 in PC

Please advise if this is a valid thought:

PC was SB. TV was travelling NB

Traffic on NB lane on which TC was travelling as only vehicle inbound.

No description on traffic on SB lane on which PC travelling. (There could have been vehicles)

If PC was doing 65 and TC was doing 90 in opposite directions. How did the PC notify the TV to pull over and when were the sirens / light activated?

Where were TV and PC when pull over was in progress? TV in NB lane and PC in SB lane or both in NB lane?

No mention of this on officers notes. So what happens?

Did the PC turn around to pursuit the TV in the SB lane? Was sight of TV maintained?

Notes indicate speed was sustained until pull over.

Question the officer on his knowledge of procedure and training to execute a traffic pull over? How did he execute the pull over in this case?

Was he in the NB lane behind the TV? Since, there is no mention on the notes other than initial approach that PC and TV were travelling in opposite directions.

How can i use this to my advantage?

Lets assume, PC turned around to pursuit the TV in the NB lane and executed traffic pull over

Argument: PC must have executed a 3 point turn to pursuit the TV in NB lane. The notes mention PC passed university when TV was approaching PC.

Radar on PC indicated TV was @ 90 and sustained until pull over.

There is no mention on the notes that radar was activated when PC was in NB lane approaching TV from behind.

Argument: In officers notes, "PC passed university and then noticed and locked TV at 90".

On colonel by drive at the university there is an intersection of traffic to enter / exit colonel by drive. Can the officer be challenged to describe if TV

was pulled over before or after the intersection? *There is nothing about it on the notes.. what happens?

if after the intersection... did the officer loose sight of TV during 3 point manure to get to NB lane from SB lane.

The TV may have passed through the intersection and I may have just entered Colonel by drive.

When did the officer identify the TV as the blue escape?

Couple things. First, delete the other thread that you started to avoid repetition and confusion in the posts.

The officers notes are just to refresh his/her memory of the incident. Every minute detail doesn't have to be in there. You will have an opportunity to cross examine the officer at trial and can ask them anything pertinent to the charge at that time, including whether they lost sight of your vehicle. This doesn't seem to be the case though as they indicated that your speed was sustained until you were pulled over. Also, if you decide to go to trial, the prosecutor will likely have the ticket amended back to the original speed of 91 km/h.

I have requested to delete the duplicate thread.

Thanks for the feedback. For a fact, i did not speed and I believe, I was pulled over based on another vechile radar reading. This is why i was curious to see the radar.

Sustained until pull over. .is mentioned on the notes.

Also mentioned is PC was travelling SB @ 65km/h and TV was travelling NB @ 90 km/h.

If vechile are travelling in opposite directions how can the TV be sustained until pull over? Unless the PC obstructed the TV by moving into the NB lane from the SB lane.

There is no meniton on how the TV and PC vechile were positoned at pull over. The police officer may say PC was in NB and TV was in SB. i can challenge and say the PC was behind me at pull over.

does this cast a doubt?

Now, if the PC was behind me.. the PC must have had to turn around on a small two lane road. This is not a simple u turn manuvre. Atleast a three point turn. There is no mention of this in the notes...

I will have to settle for how the officer decided to answer and cannot challenge how he did the turn. The fact is he turned around.

Notes also meniton that PC passed the university when TV was approaching PC. An intersection exists at this point on colonel by drive. Vechiles can turn on to NB and SB lanes of colonel by drive from this intersection.

The TV vechile pulled over, may have turned right from this interseciton into the SB lane after the speeding vechile. How will the officer prove that be maintained sight of the vechlle, while making the u turn to catch up to a 90 km/h vechile? Can this cause doubt to the case?

If you want to know the answers to all of those little questions, you'll have to take your chance at a trial and ask the officer on the stand, and also risk a conviction for 91 in a 60.

It appears that when they turned around, you were also paced by the police and that's how it was determined as "sustained"

The only way to know for sure is a trial. Weigh your options and determine if the risk of a 31 over conviction is worth it.

Further the posted signs on colonel by drive have white numerals. It is mentioned that numerals must be in black on white reflective surface.

Can this be an arguement?

As per R.R.O. 1990, REGULATION 615 SIGNS of the HTA

A speed limit sign,

(a) shall be not less than 60 centimetres in width and 75 centimetres in height;

(b) shall bear the word "maximum" in black letters not less than 10 centimetres in height on a white retro-reflective background;

(c) shall display in black numerals not less than 30 centimetres in height on a white retro-reflective background the prescribed maximum rate of speed; and

(d) may display a tab sign not less than 20 centimetres in height and not less than 60 centimetres in width immediately below the speed limit sign and the tab sign shall bear the legend "km/h" in white retro-reflective letters not less than 10 centimetres in height on a black background,

Here is a picture of the sign on colonel by drive.

Speeding is an absolute liability offense. If you're going to argue there's "technically no sign", then the speed limit is 50km. Now you're doing 91 in a 50.

Thanks...

Also, the ticket mentions i been charged under the NCCTPR act... does this carry demerrit points with the fine, in case i am guilty?

National Capital Commission Traffic and Property Regulations under section

5. (1) No person shall operate a vehicle on a driveway at a rate of speed, in kilometres per hour, that is greater than the speed posted.

http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C.R.C.,_c._1044.pdf

Speeding 90 in 50 woudl be worse, if I convince no sign was errected. But the officer menitons "80Km/h in posted 60km/h" on the ticket.