I'm a newbie so go easy on me. I found this forum and did some reading yesterday and found it pretty interesting. My question/query is this... I am old enough to remember when aircraft were used "back in the day" all the way along the 401 and they went away for many years until recently. I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN (although I can't site the case) that aircraft went away because the law was essentially struck down. This is because the judge ruled that... I'm going to paraphrase... that since the aircraft was timing a car between two fixed points, they could not pinpoint any exact speed at any given point in time. Further that the "average speed" was not sufficient to sustain the charge and therefore that "average speed" was essentially not viable. I.E. You could be going 140k in the first 200m and 90k for the next 300m (or whatever). I was shocked when McGuinty and his goat herders brought the law back... I was sure that it was struck down years ago. I AM CERTAIN it's out there!! Early 80's late 70's maybe. Anybody know the case law? Any place I can research it? Rico.
I'm a newbie so go easy on me. I found this forum and did some reading yesterday and found it pretty interesting.
My question/query is this... I am old enough to remember when aircraft were used "back in the day" all the way along the 401 and they went away for many years until recently. I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN (although I can't site the case) that aircraft went away because the law was essentially struck down.
This is because the judge ruled that... I'm going to paraphrase... that since the aircraft was timing a car between two fixed points, they could not pinpoint any exact speed at any given point in time. Further that the "average speed" was not sufficient to sustain the charge and therefore that "average speed" was essentially not viable.
I.E. You could be going 140k in the first 200m and 90k for the next 300m (or whatever).
I was shocked when McGuinty and his goat herders brought the law back... I was sure that it was struck down years ago. I AM CERTAIN it's out there!! Early 80's late 70's maybe.
I do not recall those days of aircraft, maybe it was based on fixed points such as bridges or something with inconsistent distances, where today the markings on the highway are pinpointed on the highway at exact spacing? CANLII is site for case law.
ricosuave wrote:
This is because the judge ruled that... I'm going to paraphrase... that since the aircraft was timing a car between two fixed points, they could not pinpoint any exact speed at any given point in time. Further that the "average speed" was not sufficient to sustain the charge and therefore that "average speed" was essentially not viable..
I do not recall those days of aircraft, maybe it was based on fixed points such as bridges or something with inconsistent distances, where today the markings on the highway are pinpointed on the highway at exact spacing?
CANLII is site for case law.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
I don't really see a problem with that, because if your average speed was over the limit on a stretch as a whole, then it must have been over the speed limit at at least one point of time. Given that the stretch is 100 m, then at 120 km/h it will take you less than 3 seconds to traverse the 100 m stretch. In your own example, you would have been let off really easy, as the average speed would have been 106 km/hr, instead of 140 where you would face some serious fines. Wasn't enough to convict one of the OPP officers (Tapp? I can't remember) who allegedly did 180 the whole way from A to B though...
I don't really see a problem with that, because if your average speed was over the limit on a stretch as a whole, then it must have been over the speed limit at at least one point of time. Given that the stretch is 100 m, then at 120 km/h it will take you less than 3 seconds to traverse the 100 m stretch. In your own example, you would have been let off really easy, as the average speed would have been 106 km/hr, instead of 140 where you would face some serious fines.
Wasn't enough to convict one of the OPP officers (Tapp? I can't remember) who allegedly did 180 the whole way from A to B though...
"The more laws, the less justice" - Marcus Tullius Cicero
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"
I totally understand the logic of the average speed argument... I'm just saying that I'm absolutely sure it was struck down 20+ years ago becuase the judge decided that it was not sufficient to sustain the charge. That's when all the airplanes went away until recently. Do you guys know of a site I can do research at?
I totally understand the logic of the average speed argument... I'm just saying that I'm absolutely sure it was struck down 20+ years ago becuase the judge decided that it was not sufficient to sustain the charge.
That's when all the airplanes went away until recently.
I totally understand the logic of the average speed argument... I'm just saying that I'm absolutely sure it was struck down 20+ years ago becuase the judge decided that it was not sufficient to sustain the charge.
That's when all the airplanes went away until recently.
I remember the air surveillance but I thought it was the cost that did it in. The signs seemed to stay much longer than the program. You may wish to go to the library and look at microfiche of older newspapers (there's an index) to see when the program closing was announced. You could also try writing the news media under a "hey whatever happened to..." or the "question of the day". Finally, you can also try writing to the Attorney General with your question. I would avoid talking about the case law, they won't do legal research for you. Position it more like a general inquiry about a past program. That might get a response. Good luck and please tell us what you find out!
I remember the air surveillance but I thought it was the cost that did it in. The signs seemed to stay much longer than the program. You may wish to go to the library and look at microfiche of older newspapers (there's an index) to see when the program closing was announced.
You could also try writing the news media under a "hey whatever happened to..." or the "question of the day".
Finally, you can also try writing to the Attorney General with your question. I would avoid talking about the case law, they won't do legal research for you. Position it more like a general inquiry about a past program. That might get a response.
Ok... so I was having a cocktail yesterday and I remember that it was out of Ontario that the law got struck down... Quebec I think because they had aerial surveillance for years. Thats when Ontario took it out. I have been on CanLII but the Quebec ruling are obviously in French. I will get a girl I know in Montreal to check it out for me… I still need to go to the library and check it out there… Im sure its out there somewhere!! Ill keep you posted.
Ok... so I was having a cocktail yesterday and I remember that it was out of Ontario that the law got struck down... Quebec I think because they had aerial surveillance for years.
Thats when Ontario took it out. I have been on CanLII but the Quebec ruling are obviously in French. I will get a girl I know in Montreal to check it out for me… I still need to go to the library and check it out there… Im sure its out there somewhere!!
I was actually ticket last year for this very offense by an aircraft patrol. A couple things confused me about it one being that it was the 401 and I was keeping pace with the rest of the cars in my lane at approximately 120km/h. There were definetly guys to the left passing at higher speeds (I was in the middle lane). Why would they specifically go after someone in the middle lane traveling at traffic speed? The other problem that came to mind was that I have a very common car in a common colour, how can they possibly prove that it was my car and that I was the one driving? I guess I'm wondering what exactly the process is that the aircraft patrol uses to tag someone and signal their buddy on the ground to go pull him over, can anyone shed light on it?
I was actually ticket last year for this very offense by an aircraft patrol. A couple things confused me about it one being that it was the 401 and I was keeping pace with the rest of the cars in my lane at approximately 120km/h. There were definetly guys to the left passing at higher speeds (I was in the middle lane). Why would they specifically go after someone in the middle lane traveling at traffic speed?
The other problem that came to mind was that I have a very common car in a common colour, how can they possibly prove that it was my car and that I was the one driving?
I guess I'm wondering what exactly the process is that the aircraft patrol uses to tag someone and signal their buddy on the ground to go pull him over, can anyone shed light on it?
You won't find it, ricosuave: the aircraft technique wasn't struck down, but merely abandoned in Ontario because of the cost. That, and the fact that it doesn't work in bad weather or when the aircraft is u/s (can't generate revenue sitting in the hangar). I'm not even sure that the job can be done from an aircraft at night, either. Some details of how the air/ground process works are here: http://www.parrysound.com/press/1218640116/ And some background about the previous program (1965 to 1981) is here: http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/246448 Both sources explicitly link this initiative to 172.
ricosuave wrote:
I remember that it was out of Ontario that the law got struck down... I still need to go to the library and check it out there… Im sure its out there somewhere!!
You won't find it, ricosuave: the aircraft technique wasn't struck down, but merely abandoned in Ontario because of the cost. That, and the fact that it doesn't work in bad weather or when the aircraft is u/s (can't generate revenue sitting in the hangar). I'm not even sure that the job can be done from an aircraft at night, either.
Some details of how the air/ground process works are here:
Simply the aircraft obtains a speed on a target vehicle, relays information (speed, time, description) to a ground unit, maintains sight on target vehicle until ground unit confirms visual on same target, ground unit stops target and identifies the driver.
morpheus wrote:
I was actually ticket last year for this very offense by an aircraft patrol. A couple things confused me about it one being that it was the 401 and I was keeping pace with the rest of the cars in my lane at approximately 120km/h. There were definetly guys to the left passing at higher speeds (I was in the middle lane). Why would they specifically go after someone in the middle lane traveling at traffic speed?
The other problem that came to mind was that I have a very common car in a common colour, how can they possibly prove that it was my car and that I was the one driving?
I guess I'm wondering what exactly the process is that the aircraft patrol uses to tag someone and signal their buddy on the ground to go pull him over, can anyone shed light on it?
Simply the aircraft obtains a speed on a target vehicle, relays information (speed, time, description) to a ground unit, maintains sight on target vehicle until ground unit confirms visual on same target, ground unit stops target and identifies the driver.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
As long as the vehicle is in constant motion from time of pilot visual contact to point of ground traffic stop. What if the vehicle had stopped in between. Potential for change of driver?
hwybear wrote:
...ground unit stops target and identifies the driver.
As long as the vehicle is in constant motion from time of pilot visual contact to point of ground traffic stop. What if the vehicle had stopped in between. Potential for change of driver?
As long as the vehicle is in constant motion from time of pilot visual contact to point of ground traffic stop. What if the vehicle had stopped in between. Potential for change of driver? Yeah, and what IF they stopped under the overpass, just prior to the ground units sitting on the "get-on-ramp" then what? Or what if the vehicle was on "cruise control" and person was sitting in the back :shock: :shock: then what? :lol: :lol:
Bookm wrote:
hwybear wrote:
...ground unit stops target and identifies the driver.
As long as the vehicle is in constant motion from time of pilot visual contact to point of ground traffic stop. What if the vehicle had stopped in between. Potential for change of driver?
Yeah, and what IF they stopped under the overpass, just prior to the ground units sitting on the "get-on-ramp" then what?
Or what if the vehicle was on "cruise control" and person was sitting in the back then what?
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Might have forgot, driving a motor vehicle, while not in the drivers seat?? But the driver jumped out....now rolling on the pavement back there.....didn't want the speeding ticket from that dem dar arrowplane. :lol:
Squishy wrote:
Not according to the province.
Maybe if you set it on cruise then crawled into the trunk.
Might have forgot, driving a motor vehicle, while not in the drivers seat??
But the driver jumped out....now rolling on the pavement back there.....didn't want the speeding ticket from that dem dar arrowplane.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
The legislature will debate on it until the end of parliamentary session, then on the next session they will decide that it is not safe enough (just like electric cars), despite data from elsewhere. Someone then will bring up the issue again, when Guvernment Motors will make that car, and the legality of such cars will be approved, along with a $5000 rebate.
FiReSTaRT wrote:
On that tangent, what will happen to the law when self-driven vehicles based on dGPS technology come out?
The legislature will debate on it until the end of parliamentary session, then on the next session they will decide that it is not safe enough (just like electric cars), despite data from elsewhere. Someone then will bring up the issue again, when Guvernment Motors will make that car, and the legality of such cars will be approved, along with a $5000 rebate.
"The more laws, the less justice" - Marcus Tullius Cicero
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"
The fine is not the issue but I am worried about insurance rates. First speeding ticket in my life Any suggestions on how to handle this? I can't afford to spend a day at the court
So was at court today in Orillia for a friend, and I had submitted a couple notice of motion a couple weeks ago that I wanted to deal with before arraignment. I met with prosecutor before hand, and it went something like this:
Prosecutor: "Do you have the case law?"
Me: "What do you mean?"
Prosecutor: "Do you have the case law for your motion?"
Me: "All the case law is quoted in the motion that I…
1)failure to change address on license (i got married a couple of months earlier and moved)
2) license plate not fully visible
I got pulled over because I had 2 letters peeling off my license plate. I know ignorance isn't a defense, but I really had no idea that this was an issue. Plus, you see many cars on the road with peeling plates. I got both tickets and…
I was driving around 140km/h on a 100km/h posted on the highway. I was in the fast lane. The officer was very nice and reduced it to no points and just 15km/h over.
I only have my G2.
1. Will this affect me taking the G test next month?
2. I am very grateful for the officer lowering the ticket... should I just pay the 52.5$ and leave it as is.. I am a secondary driver under my dads name and we have…
Hi, thanks in advance for the help. Been driving for 10 years, clean record until today when I got slapped with two tickets. First: going 135 at 100 on the 401, second: not having a valid sticker (I recently moved and completely forgot about it)
My friend tells me I should fight the speed ticket, if anything to reduce the fine and points. Would be alot of help if anyone could walk me through…
My wife, who has never had a traffic ticket in her life, just got 11 points.
Two tickets: "following too closely" and "failure to stop"
She was on a residential street and was behind a car at a crosswalk waiting for a pedestrian. Pedestrian crossed, they continued. Cop was drivig towards them down a side street , and as they passed he went after my wife.
I was driving in mid lane and was following a line of cars around speed limit.
The vehicle in front of me was large and I decided to change to the left lane to get better line sight.
As soon as I entered the left lane, I saw the car in front of me approximately 200m away stopped dead (for some odd reason, there was more traffic on the left lane).
Over the last few months I have received several parking tickets from the City of Kitchener. I haven't paid any of them and have attempted to dicuss the situation with the parking authority of the City, however, they're very unreceptive and defensive.
I work at a downtown construction site....ironically a Court House. The site takes up a whole city block, of which ONE side has 2 hour parking…
I was driving on a teusday night in the rain and fog at whites and highview by St. Mary CSS in Pickering, ON. At the time I was waiting at a red light to make a left north onto whites. There was also a car on the opposite side of the intersection making a left. The cars beams were pointed almost directly at my face and as a result, with the combination of the rain and fog, I…
I am new to this website and this is my first post so please forgive me if I've put this question in the wrong place. Please bear with me until I learn the ropes a bit.
So here are my questions:
Antique cars and hot rods (1930's- early '60's) and seat belt use in Ontario. If these vehicles never came from the respective factories with any seat belts, do they have to be retrofitted ?
OK so Jshreck has been taking some heat for the concept of providing the DL as being not required and therefore inadmissable in court. Personally, I think that argument would fall on deaf ears in the lower court and any chance at victory would have to be in the highest court. That would be quite something. When pigs fly I think, but along that line of thought, allow me to continue.......
I have a court date soon and am wondering whether the officers just read off their disclosure notes when interrogated.
Basically, according to the disclosure notes and the said distances and speeds quoted, by doing some simple math it just doesn't add up. My concern is whether the officer can change his story when on the stand after maybe realizing this?
Last week I was driving home from college in the sauga area. I drive a 1995 Chevy Monte Carlo v6 which I've owned since 2000, I really haven't done anything to the car except tinted windows (not completely darken) and some rims, and Nothing Engine wise. Anyway I look in my rear view mirror and out of no where i see cherry flashing. When pulled over the officer asked do you…
I was charged 2 days ago with RED LIGHT - FAIL TO STOP and set fined $150 and I guess 3 points. I was driving turning left on the intersection with a traffic light, and when I jst about to turn left the light turned to orange and I didn't have enough time to stop. Once I turned I saw the light turned to red and 2seconds later I saw a police beacon flashing through my rear-view mirror. It…
I figured pleading not guilty is the same as saying it was signed which is stupid. A friend of mine told me I could plead guilty with explanation and try to get the fine reduced when I come in.
So this Friday I was stopped by a local officer for going 110 in a 80zone. He also claims I was going 105 in a 50zone,which we literally passed when he stopped me as I was braking. It has been 3 days already and I can't seem to locate my ticket on their Internet site "pay ticket". Is there a way to determine if he has filed for certificate of offence to the courts? It has been 3 days I presume…
My trial date is in a couple days for a speeding ticket (york region) and i am nervous it is my first ticket ever as well as first trial
I did notice my ticket was filed beyond 7 days, 10 days after the day i got the ticket to be exact, which is stamped on the ticket. is this enough to have it dismissed?
If you look close enough, beside the drivers' side "A" pillar you will see a white circle = front antenna of Genesis radar......plus look above the dash pad...there is the Spectre RDD.
Any suggestions on how to handle this? I can't afford to spend a day at the court 
