Legality of Aircraft for Speeding

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.

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.

Yes, they were painted markings on the road at fixed distances and they used a stopwatch to time you between the lines.

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 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?

ricosuave wrote:

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?

http://www.canlii.org

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!

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.

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?

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:

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.

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.

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?

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?

hwybear wrote:

Yeah, and what IF they stopped under the overpass, just prior to the ground units sitting on the "get-on-ramp" then what?

Hmmmm... good point!

hwybear wrote:

Or what if the vehicle was on "cruise control" and person was sitting in the back then what?

Now that would be silly

(yeeess, I detect your sarcasm!)

hwybear wrote:

Or what if the vehicle was on "cruise control" and person was sitting in the back then what?

That would be... hmm... stunt driving!!

Not according to the province.

Maybe if you set it on cruise then crawled into the trunk.

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.

Oops! And it's right after the trunk part, too.

On that tangent, what will happen to the law when self-driven vehicles based on dGPS technology come out?

FiReSTaRT wrote:

On that tangent, what will happen to the law when self-driven vehicles based on dGPS technology come out?

Been awhile, how was the honeymoon?

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.