70 km/h in 50 km/h - Cop was wrong...

Happened near Laurier University in Waterloo Ontario around ~2 AM

Issue #1

From when I turned onto that road all the way up to the hidden bike cop there wasn't a single posted speed sign, at least one I could SEE (went back and saw it in the morning). I know you should default to 50 km/h when there's no signs but the flow of traffic on that road at night was nuts. I tried to stick to 60 km/h

Later after the event followed this road in the morning and found out it flip flopped between 50 and 60 km/h!

Issue #2

Before the cop was a red light so I was accelerating when the cop pulled me. This was also JUST before the "hidden" 50 km/h sign. He was less than 300m according to google maps... I drive a manual transmission car and it takes some time to go from 0 km/h to 70 km/h, I was not launching the car from the red light flooring gas etc... The cop would've ticketed me for this if I did and my driving that night wasn't even mentioned when he pulled me over

Issue #3

Unfortunately the footage from when the cop pulled me over wasn't saved because I turned my car off right away. And the camera doesn't record speed... So it's his word vs my word with some dashcam footage

How do I fight this in Ontario?

Thank you

The road I turned onto (morning shot) ... No speed signs and it's a major road...

http://i.imgur.com/bRLH2vJ.jpg

Picture from the car with cop and speed sign pointed out. You can't make out the sign or the police officer because of how dim it is there

http://i.imgur.com/sxbQbAj.jpg

Morning shot of the same area with cop & sign pointed out

http://i.imgur.com/IFjG25k.jpg

Picture of the car at the the stop light. It's so poorly illuminated

http://i.imgur.com/t2rbELE.jpg

Stop Light (Day).. It's a major road so I don't feel as bad aiming for 60 km/h especially at 2 am. In fact the road does change to 60 km/h if you keep following it...

http://i.imgur.com/mIZchcj.jpg

Just curious if any of this makes a difference?

Thanks

Issue 1 isn't an issue. If there's no sign, the default limit is 50 in built up areas. Flow of traffic doesn't mean anything and doesn't correspond to anything in the Highway Traffic Act. You are either speeding or you are not. That's all they need for a conviction.

Issue 2 is speculation. There's nothing in your explanation that describes when, where, and how the officer recorded your speed. You would have to request disclosure and go over the officers notes before running through calculations.

If you want to fight your ticket, follow the instructions on it. It usually involves going to the courthouse. You either get your Notice of Trial while you're there or you'll receive it in the mail some weeks or months later.

^

This won't affect my clean record until this gets resolved for good or bad correct? Let's say my next renewal comes up and this is still not resolved then the insurance company can't consider it?

Correct. A charge means nothing, only a conviction. Technically you're supposed to report a conviction to your insurance company when you get it but no one does.

argyll wrote:

Correct. A charge means nothing, only a conviction. Technically you're supposed to report a conviction to your insurance company when you get it but no one does.

Thank you!

I've been reading for hours on here and I think I have the process down pat...

i) Ask for trial

ii) Ask for disclaimer

iii) If there's any questions then ask for a typed disclaimer

iv) Decide if hiring a lawyer or paralegal is worth it

v) Court

?

The day you were charged doesn't mean much unless you're talking demerit points. The points associated with your charge start from the day you're charged and last 2 years. If it takes 6 months to be convicted, the points will show up on your abstract 6 months later and last for the remaining 18 months. If you're concerned about insurance, the day you're convicted is the date you'd be interested in.

You had messaged me with the question of whether or not ignoring the flow of traffic could translate into impeding traffic. If the flow is exceeding the posted rate of speed, the answer would be no. Impeding traffic is reserved for things like unnecessary slow driving that translates into blocking reasonable movement. However, slow rate of speed necessary for safe operation is NOT impeding. If it's snowing and the speed limit is 70km, it's reasonable to travel at a slower rate of speed. In that scenario, it's not considered impeding even though you're travelling well under the limit. If the conditions on that same road are clear and you're travelling 45km, you're impeding.

Parpookin52 wrote:

I've been reading for hours on here and I think I have the process down pat...

i) Ask for trial ii) Ask for disclaimer iii) If there's any questions then ask for a typed disclaimer iv) Decide if hiring a lawyer or paralegal is worth it v) Court

You want DISCLOSURE not a disclaimer.

I Just want to understand this.

1. You have proof that the speed limit is 50 at night and 60 by day?

2. The cop is lying about your speed.

3. You feel your vehicle can't accelerate to 70 in the specified distance?

Is that correct?

^

It's a long road and speed signs vary from 60 (posted), 50 km/h (posted) & then areas with absolutely zero speed signs (where I got pulled over). I assumed 60 km/h was a safe bet and had no problems until that stupid cop pulled me over after the red light.

In fact there's 3 police buildings within one KM from where I got pulled over and I didn't get into any trouble until after the red light.

#1

Waterloo Regional Police - North Division

#2

Special Constable Service for Wilfrid Laurier University

#3

Special Constable Service for University of Waterloo

Lying's too harsh, maybe he guessed or I peaked at ~65 km/h or something. From my end I was accelerating from that red light, was going to 60 km/h and get on the highway later down the road (that stretch is 60 km/h).

My car can accelerate to 70 km/h and it can do it rather quickly, you can set launch control etc. But I didn't use any of this because I was just driving normally... I think the cop targeted the type of car I was in...

Also the car's a manual gearbox car so I was quite AWARE of what the car was doing before the ticket.. But how could I ever prove this in court

If it was a 50 and you admit to going 60 then you will be charged as you will have testified against yourself, regardless if the 60 was just ahead.

When it's your word against the officers, guess who they are most likely to believe?

jsherk wrote:

If it was a 50 and you admit to going 60 then you will be charged as you will have testified against yourself, regardless if the 60 was just ahead.

When it's your word against the officers, guess who they are most likely to believe?

Yes I think this cop would have given me ticket for going 60 km/h too.. Probably had his eyes on the car from the red light ...

When does the time of the ticket start? From the minute the police turned the lights on or when I stopped the car?

Thanks

You sent me a couple PM ... here is answer:

WHAT SHOULD I DO? HOW DO I FIGHT MY TICKET?

Regardless of how simple or complex the charge is (from parking tickets to DUI), you have the RIGHT to a fair trial and a RIGHT to see the evidence they have against you. Even if you admit to doing whatever you were charged with, you still have these rights.

So my advice is that you should plead NOT GUILTY and request a Trial with the officer present. Once you get your Notice of Trial with a trial date, you can request disclosure (copy of notes of all officers involved, copy of radar/laser device manual if applicable).

Once you get the disclosure (officers notes), post them back on the forum so we can review them and give you more advice (black out any personal id info and officer id info).

You have nothing to lose by doing this, as you can still plead guilty and pay the ticket anytime up to the trial. You have everything to gain because the officers notes contain what they will testify, and if something is missing in their notes, you might be able to get the charge dropped.

SHOULD I HIRE A PARALEGAL/LAWYER?

In order to save some money, you can usually do all the above steps yourself first, without the need to hire a paralegal or lawyer. Once you get the disclosure and depending on the seriousness of the charge, you can then decide whether to hire one or whether to try and fight it yourself. You can also arrange to meet with the prosecutor yourself before the trial, to see if they will offer you a plea deal. Again, there is no point in hiring a paralegal to negotiate a plea deal you can do yourself.

Points to conisder:

- Do not hire any paralegal/lawyer that suggests they can win without seeing the disclosure first.

- Only hire a paralegal/lawyer that will review the disclosure with you and suggest possible defenses to try and fight it.

- Do not hire any paralegal/lawyer that considers "negotiating a plea deal" a win. Although a plea deal might be the best choice for you, some paralegals do not try to fight at all and will only negotiate plea deals and then they say they "won".

- Do not hire any paralegal/lawyer that "gurantees a win or you don't pay" as this is illegal in Ontario.

VEHICLE INSURANCE & DEMERITS

The effects of pleading guilty to a 0 demerit charge, can still cause your insurance rates to increase for 3 years. It is important to remember that insurance companies do NOT care about demerit points. Insurance companies rate the tickets you get as either MINOR, MAJOR or SERIOUS. For each minor conviction you have, your insurance may raise your rates a little. For each major conviction you have, your insurance may raise your rates a lot. For each serious conviction you have, your insurance may DOUBLE your rates or even refuse to provide you with insurance at all.

For example, most speeding tickets, regardless of demerit points, are considered minor and will affect your insurance the same. Example:

- Speeding 1 over to 15 over = 0 demerit points = Considered MINOR by inusrance company.

- Speeding 16 over to 29 over = 3 demerit points = also considered MINOR by inusrance company.

- Speeding 30 over to 49 over = 4 demerit points = also considered MINOR by most inusrance companies (some may consider this MAJOR).

If you get a ticket for 1 over, it will affect your insurance exactly the same as if you got a ticket for 29 over. The insurance companies do not care about the demerits and do not care about the speed.

SPEEDING - OFFICER LOWERED SPEED

Police in Ontario have the discretion to lower the speed on the ticket if they want. They do not have to do this, it is completely up to them. If they do lower the speed though, and you take it trial and you lose at the trial, the ticket will be raised back up to the higher speed.

Example:

- An officer pulls you over and says you were going 20 over, but drops the ticket to 15 over so it is 0 demerits instead of 3 demerits. If you go all the way to trial and then lose at the trial, you will be charged with the higher 20 over and have to pay the higher fine and get the 3 demerits. But also remember that you still have the right to a trial and the right to see the evidence/disclosure first. You can still choose to plead guilty and pay the lower 15 over ticket right up until the trial. And also remember that the 15 over 0 demerits can still cause your insurance to go up the same as if you got the 20 over 3 demerits ticket.

hi;

sorry to hijack; but a related question

on a road the posted limit is 70.. you get a sign then saying 50 ahead, then the 50 starts sign.

SO... between doing the 70 and the 50 at "what"point should you be doing 50, because there will be the 50 ahead and the 50 STARTS?

should the car be slowed down from 70-50 at the 50 ahead sign OR gradual reduction from 70-50 between the 50 ahead and 50 starts?

On the reverse, there's a road which goes from 50-70 (I assume same as this OP)

I will do 50 (even though I get honked at) right until my car nose is parallel with the 70 sign, then my gas foot goes down.

Can I gas down when the 70 starts sign comes up OR when I am level with the 70 sign

I "ask" because in the UK this has come up with roads with varying speed limits, I was always told

you should begin to change the speed (if accelerating) or brake when the speed sign is parallel WITH your car, i.e. when the speed limit comes into effect

Some cops (not sure about here) have given tickets and sited that explantion

great ca$h grab

thanks

and sorry for the hijack.. which I also think is valid

jsherk wrote:

If it was a 50 and you admit to going 60 then you will be charged as you will have testified against yourself, regardless if the 60 was just ahead.

When it's your word against the officers, guess who they are most likely to believe?

In Ontario, when in a 70 zone, you can go 70 right up to the point where the 50 BEGINS, at which point you need to be going 50.

In Ontario, when in a 50 zone you should go 50 right up to the point where the 70 BEGINS.

Although the signs are giving you warnings that a new speed will begin ahead, it is still not that new speed zone yet. The posted speed comes into effect at the BEGINS sign.

How is it a cash grab having signs that indicate what speed you should be going ? The warning signs are a courtesy to allow you to slow your car down to the new sped limit ahead which is in effect when you reach the sign.

A cash grab would be if there were no warning signs.

I was referring to the UK and there are NO warning signs it will just say 70 then 50

and they expect you to be doing that speed as soon as you car hits that sign

argyll wrote:

How is it a cash grab having signs that indicate what speed you should be going ? The warning signs are a courtesy to allow you to slow your car down to the new sped limit ahead which is in effect when you reach the sign.

A cash grab would be if there were no warning signs.

the 70-50, that's a big drop in speed

going the other way is not an issue

I can see somone getting copped decelerating from a 70-50;

unless it was obvious that they where, or ignored,or didnt see it

anyway txs for the explanation

IF in a 70 ( I usually have cruise control) when I see a 50 ahead, I'll switch off the cruise, which allows me to slow down and by the time I hit the 50 max

I'm doing 50,

I can see people going form 70 then slowing down at the 50 by braking harder, or just coasting by slowing down from 70-50

technically you could be not as slow as 50 and could get a ticket by an overzealous cop.

Whether there is any leeway I don't know

txs though

jsherk wrote:

In Ontario, when in a 70 zone, you can go 70 right up to the point where the 50 BEGINS, at which point you need to be going 50.

In Ontario, when in a 50 zone you should go 50 right up to the point where the 70 BEGINS.

Although the signs are giving you warnings that a new speed will begin ahead, it is still not that new speed zone yet. The posted speed comes into effect at the BEGINS sign.

No leeway. Once you hit the BEGINS sign, you are in that posted speed zone.

@ jsherk - thank you

@OP - That's what I would have done too to avoid brake checking or getting rear ended by people. Once I saw the 50 km/h sign I would have slowed down or just stopped accelerating but look what happened. The police rather I brake check someone?

Also in my case you couldn't even see the 50 km/h sign at night, traffic was flying by going 60 km/h minimum, no signs up to the cop, car was accelerating and it was four lanes total. The cop didn't take any of this into consideration

Parpookin52 wrote:

@OP - That's what I would have done too to avoid brake checking or getting rear ended by people. Once I saw the 50 km/h sign I would have slowed down or just stopped accelerating but look what happened. The police rather I brake check someone?

If someone behind you is travelling too close, it's not your responsibility to avoid the brake or keep on the accelerator. It's not a defense, although you're certainly not the first person to bring it up. Since you have more than one lane, it's a perfect opportunity to move over to the right lane and let them pass on the left.

Parpookin52 wrote:

Also in my case you couldn't even see the 50 km/h sign at night, traffic was flying by going 60 km/h minimum, no signs up to the cop, car was accelerating and it was four lanes total. The cop didn't take any of this into consideration

Regulated signs are reflective. It's not a defense.

You've also been too preoccupied with everyone else. If everyone else is speeding, it's not your problem. You're in a perfect position to move over to the right and let everyone else pass on the left.

Forget about the fact that other people were speeding. It's irrelevant. You're also wishy washy when talking about signs. One second there were no signs and the next you can't see them because it's dark. Either way, there's a default limit. If you plan on fighting your ticket, it's probably best that you avoid everything you've mentioned so far. Especially the part about the officer targeting you because of the car you drive.

Speeding is an absolute liability offense. That means that (a) you were speeding; or (b) you were not speeding. Everything you've mentioned has been "I was speeding, but..." which means you're already guilty. If you're going to go down this route, you'd be better off taking a deal. Otherwise, you're going to have to start somewhere else.

^

Time to hire a team and shut up :]

looks like I'll be hitting the brakes then

Parpookin52 wrote:

^

Time to hire a team and shut up :]

You don't have to necessarily hire anybody. Depending on your current insurance situation, it may not even be worth it. You may have not much to lose anyways, so it's not a bad time to do it yourself. The debates and arguments you may have among your friends don't correlate to a courtroom. Your friends might understand driving with the flow, but that's not something you bring into a courtroom.

If you are pleading not guilty to this speeding charge, you are essentially saying "At no point did I ever exceed the posted speed limit". So far, you have not done that. In the eyes of the court, you've provided excuses for going 70km. You'd already be guilty right off the bat, proven your own guilt, and wasted all this time for nothing.

There are people everyday who go into a courtroom and read off the same points you're making here. You're definitely not alone, but these people would have been better off taking a plea deal instead. That's not me advising you to take a deal, but if you go down the route you're currently going with traffic flow and not being able to see signs in the dark, they are going to find you guilty.

^

Yes I would have to lie to beat the ticket

Obviously, you can't lie in a courtroom or you'd be in more trouble than you're currently in. It's also not up to you to prove your own guilt, although you're certainly free to do so.

NEVER lie to police and NEVER lie when you are on the witness stand in the court room.

You have the right NOT to testify against yourself, so you are better off NOT giving your side of the story.

You need to instead beat the ticket by cross-examining the officer on their use and training on the device, and bring reasonable doubt to what they said.

I'm still unclear if you were in a posted 50 zone. You were in a posted 60 then you got a ticket for doing 70 in a 50. Did you fail to see or heed a 50 begins sign?

As for you accelerating to 70 from a stop. I would begin by searching the internet for performance tests on your car to see how quickly the tests say it accelerates. Then I would go back to the scene and measure the distance over which you allegedly accelerated to 70. Then I would take dash video to possibly show that the sign was not readily visible. Signs are supposed to be reflective ... perhaps this one was not? Perhaps it was blocked from view? I would also measure the position of the sign to make sure complies with the rules.

If you are telling us the truth, I think you are saying you thought you were in a 60 because you didn't see the 50 sign. AND you dispute that you were doing 70...more like 65? If this is true, you need to show the JP that the sign is not visible and your car is gutless. It's very possible the sign is not reflective. I bet you win with that argument alone if you present it correctly.

Reduction of speed is the easy one, once you see a reduced speed limit ahead you start slowing down so when your are parallel with that speed limit (50 for example) you are in fact travelling at that speed.

Acceleration would be the same for me, and I would simply ignore people honking, you can't let others push you around and force you to break the law and get a ticket.

At the end of the day, they are not the ones paying your insurance premium.

Cheers