Scenario regarding speeding charge - if a charge is not reduced at all at roadside, i.e. the charge, for example is "speeding 75 km/h in a 60 km/h zone contrary to s. 128," should that not mean the prosecution needs to prove that you are guilty of what you are being charged with, and not, simply, of speeding generally? I understand that if they prove a charge of even 61 km/h in a 60 km/h, they can obtain a conviction, however, if the charge itself in this case is 75 km/h in a 60 km/h - do they not have to prove you guilty of that offence in order to obtain a conviction? Where I'm going with this is that even if the prosecution can prove an officer is properly trained and perfectly operates and the unit, conditions are optimal, and the device is properly tested and calibrated, there is still a margin of error of up to 2 km/h for any speed mesuring device, easily proved with the radar manual. So with that in hand, is it not impossible to prove the defendant guilty as charged, if the speed is not reduced by at least that amount? Has anyone heard of this defence being tried? And certainly, if the prosecutor attempted to amend the charge in the middle of trial (by dropping the speed by 2km/h, for e.g.) there is case law to support this being prejudicial. Thoughts?
Scenario regarding speeding charge - if a charge is not reduced at all at roadside, i.e. the charge, for example is "speeding 75 km/h in a 60 km/h zone contrary to s. 128," should that not mean the prosecution needs to prove that you are guilty of what you are being charged with, and not, simply, of speeding generally? I understand that if they prove a charge of even 61 km/h in a 60 km/h, they can obtain a conviction, however, if the charge itself in this case is 75 km/h in a 60 km/h - do they not have to prove you guilty of that offence in order to obtain a conviction?
Where I'm going with this is that even if the prosecution can prove an officer is properly trained and perfectly operates and the unit, conditions are optimal, and the device is properly tested and calibrated, there is still a margin of error of up to 2 km/h for any speed mesuring device, easily proved with the radar manual. So with that in hand, is it not impossible to prove the defendant guilty as charged, if the speed is not reduced by at least that amount?
Has anyone heard of this defence being tried? And certainly, if the prosecutor attempted to amend the charge in the middle of trial (by dropping the speed by 2km/h, for e.g.) there is case law to support this being prejudicial.
fyi, that is not accurate information ^^ depends on the speed measuring equipment being used^^ You can get your info on the margin of error after disclosure
hwybear wrote:
mathers wrote:
there is still a margin of error of up to 2 km/h for any speed mesuring device
fyi, that is not accurate information
^^ depends on the speed measuring equipment being used^^
You can get your info on the margin of error after disclosure
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com
Please enlighten on equipment in current use that advertises a degree of accuracy of greater than +/- 1 mph (1.6 km/h). thx. If such does exist, the question remains open for all other equipment with accuracy of only +/- 1 mph (1.6 km/h) or worse. Defence ever attempted?
fyi, that is not accurate information
Please enlighten on equipment in current use that advertises a degree of accuracy of greater than +/- 1 mph (1.6 km/h). thx.
If such does exist, the question remains open for all other equipment with accuracy of only +/- 1 mph (1.6 km/h) or worse. Defence ever attempted?
you are reading a USA manual if you see MPH and is not applicable to canada it is in fact one unit of measure, whether it be km or mph +/- 1 is that the unit can almost always will never obtain a reading of say 100.000000 etc km/hr but the reading could be 100.9999999 etc (which is up to the +1) however the unit always will round down to the nearest whole number being "100", (which is the minus 1), thus the rounding down on every reading is a benefit to the driver
you are reading a USA manual if you see MPH and is not applicable to canada
it is in fact one unit of measure, whether it be km or mph
+/- 1 is that the unit can almost always will never obtain a reading of say 100.000000 etc km/hr
but the reading could be 100.9999999 etc (which is up to the +1) however the unit always will round down to the nearest whole number being "100", (which is the minus 1), thus the rounding down on every reading is a benefit to the driver
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
The info you have is for slightly older models and it used to be the norm, i.e +/- 1 MPH, or 2 KMH.... There are some models of moving radar that are capable of measuring speed as well as estimating distance to target. These units, due in large part to the calc'ns required offered a error margin of +/- 3.2 KMH, however according to my sources, these were not purchased by the respective police force for that very reason.
The info you have is for slightly older models and it used to be the norm, i.e +/- 1 MPH, or 2 KMH.... There are some models of moving radar that are capable of measuring speed as well as estimating distance to target. These units, due in large part to the calc'ns required offered a error margin of +/- 3.2 KMH, however according to my sources, these were not purchased by the respective police force for that very reason.
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com
Add onto that the cosine angle effect which is always to the benefit of the target and you have a displayed speed on the radar which is always less than the targets actual speed.
Add onto that the cosine angle effect which is always to the benefit of the target and you have a displayed speed on the radar which is always less than the targets actual speed.
The unit is the unit. It will not be more or less accurate whether you are north or south of the border. 1 mph = 1.6 kmh. The accuracy is the accuracy, whatever it may be. If the advertised accuracy of the unit is +/- 1 mph (or 1 kmh, for that matter), this is irrelevant to the argument. Yours is a discussion of rounding, not accuracy. If the reading is 100.1, it rounds down to 100, but due to the accuracy being +/- 1kmh, the actual speed could be 99.1 (or 98.5, if +/- 1.6).
you are reading a USA manual if you see MPH and is not applicable to canada
The unit is the unit. It will not be more or less accurate whether you are north or south of the border. 1 mph = 1.6 kmh. The accuracy is the accuracy, whatever it may be.
+/- 1 is that the unit can almost always will never obtain a reading of say 100.000000 etc km/hr
but the reading could be 100.9999999 etc (which is up to the +1) however the unit always will round down to the nearest whole number being "100", (which is the minus 1), thus the rounding down on every reading is a benefit to the driver
If the advertised accuracy of the unit is +/- 1 mph (or 1 kmh, for that matter), this is irrelevant to the argument. Yours is a discussion of rounding, not accuracy. If the reading is 100.1, it rounds down to 100, but due to the accuracy being +/- 1kmh, the actual speed could be 99.1 (or 98.5, if +/- 1.6).
The unit is the unit. It will not be more or less accurate whether you are north or south of the border. 1 mph = 1.6 kmh. The accuracy is the accuracy, whatever it may be. The accuracy is based on the unit of measure used and does not matter what type of unit is being used, it is the same math for each unit. (ie: 7apples divided by 3apples = 2.33apples / 7 kph divide by 3kph = 2.33. kph / 7L divide by 3L = 2.33L / 7inches divide by 3inches = 2.33inches) I know the difference between accuracy and rounding and that is specifically taught on course and why it the unit is accurate WITHIN + / - 1kph on each displayed reading. Because it is next to impossible to ever have a reading bang on the exact precise number after the calculation with decimal places. So that is where the accuracy part comes in...the true/precise accurate speed could be the 100.1kph as you describe, however the unit does not display in 10ths, 100ths or 1000ths etc, so it automatically programmed to round down to the nearest whole number, which would be 100. So in this case the unit is accurate within 0.1kph.
mathers wrote:
you are reading a USA manual if you see MPH and is not applicable to canada
The unit is the unit. It will not be more or less accurate whether you are north or south of the border. 1 mph = 1.6 kmh. The accuracy is the accuracy, whatever it may be.
The accuracy is based on the unit of measure used and does not matter what type of unit is being used, it is the same math for each unit.
(ie: 7apples divided by 3apples = 2.33apples / 7 kph divide by 3kph = 2.33. kph / 7L divide by 3L = 2.33L / 7inches divide by 3inches = 2.33inches)
+/- 1 is that the unit can almost always will never obtain a reading of say 100.000000 etc km/hr
but the reading could be 100.9999999 etc (which is up to the +1) however the unit always will round down to the nearest whole number being "100", (which is the minus 1), thus the rounding down on every reading is a benefit to the driver
mathers wrote:
If the advertised accuracy of the unit is +/- 1 mph (or 1 kmh, for that matter), this is irrelevant to the argument. Yours is a discussion of rounding, not accuracy. If the reading is 100.1, it rounds down to 100, but due to the accuracy being +/- 1kmh, the actual speed could be 99.1 (or 98.5, if +/- 1.6).
I know the difference between accuracy and rounding and that is specifically taught on course and why it the unit is accurate WITHIN + / - 1kph on each displayed reading. Because it is next to impossible to ever have a reading bang on the exact precise number after the calculation with decimal places. So that is where the accuracy part comes in...the true/precise accurate speed could be the 100.1kph as you describe, however the unit does not display in 10ths, 100ths or 1000ths etc, so it automatically programmed to round down to the nearest whole number, which would be 100. So in this case the unit is accurate within 0.1kph.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
This is illogical. The accuracy of a device is not based on a unit of measure. The accuracy of a device is based on how accurately it measures something. Your statements seem to imply that, but for rounding, any speed measuring device is 100% accurate, to a certain infinitesimal fraction of a kilometer. This is not however contained in the advertised accuracy of these devices. The devices are simply advertised as accurate to +/- x. That means that the internal reading itself, is accurate to within x. The internal speed clocked will never exactly represent the actual speed of the target. That speed will always vary to some degree from the internal reading. The advertised degree it can vary is x.
The accuracy is based on the unit of measure
This is illogical. The accuracy of a device is not based on a unit of measure. The accuracy of a device is based on how accurately it measures something.
I know the difference between accuracy and rounding and that is specifically taught on course and why it the unit is accurate WITHIN + / - 1kph on each displayed reading. Because it is next to impossible to ever have a reading bang on the exact precise number after the calculation with decimal places. So that is where the accuracy part comes in...the true/precise accurate speed could be the 100.1kph as you describe, however the unit does not display in 10ths, 100ths or 1000ths etc, so it automatically programmed to round down to the nearest whole number, which would be 100. So in this case the unit is accurate within 0.1kph.
Your statements seem to imply that, but for rounding, any speed measuring device is 100% accurate, to a certain infinitesimal fraction of a kilometer. This is not however contained in the advertised accuracy of these devices. The devices are simply advertised as accurate to +/- x. That means that the internal reading itself, is accurate to within x. The internal speed clocked will never exactly represent the actual speed of the target. That speed will always vary to some degree from the internal reading. The advertised degree it can vary is x.
The radar is accurate to within +/- 0.1 km/h. However, as hwybear says, the radar cannot read 89.9 km/h, so it rounds down to 89 km/h in that case. And actually hwybear's statement about "accuracy being based on a unit of measure" comes directly from the radar manufacturer: Decatur's statement is the radar is "accurate to within +/-1 unit of measure," because anywhere from 89.0 to 89.9 km/h, it will read 89.
The radar is accurate to within +/- 0.1 km/h. However, as hwybear says, the radar cannot read 89.9 km/h, so it rounds down to 89 km/h in that case. And actually hwybear's statement about "accuracy being based on a unit of measure" comes directly from the radar manufacturer: Decatur's statement is the radar is "accurate to within +/-1 unit of measure," because anywhere from 89.0 to 89.9 km/h, it will read 89.
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca
Thx Radar - we may now be starting to get somewhere. Is this information advertised in the manuals for all radar/lidar? And if yes, is it backed up with any independently verified empirical data?
The radar is accurate to within +/- 0.1 km/h.
Thx Radar - we may now be starting to get somewhere. Is this information advertised in the manuals for all radar/lidar? And if yes, is it backed up with any independently verified empirical data?
The International Association of Chiefs of Police, among others, conduct field trials and audits on the devices for accuracy. This is independent of any tests that the manufacturer does to verify the accuracy of its products. The information about the accuracy is advertised in the manuals. Non-empirical, strictly anecdotal evidence: Every time I've been stopped the reading was +/- 1 km/h of the speed I thought I was doing, so in my experience the devices are fairly accurate. (Also I've been stopped often enough that I have a basis for this statement.)
The International Association of Chiefs of Police, among others, conduct field trials and audits on the devices for accuracy. This is independent of any tests that the manufacturer does to verify the accuracy of its products.
The information about the accuracy is advertised in the manuals.
Non-empirical, strictly anecdotal evidence: Every time I've been stopped the reading was +/- 1 km/h of the speed I thought I was doing, so in my experience the devices are fairly accurate. (Also I've been stopped often enough that I have a basis for this statement.)
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca
I got ticket for failing to stop at stop sign in Toronto. i heard that the police officer must see the stop line, if there is one, from where he was sitting. That is exactly my case, Is it a strong case? If so do i need a picture to show that there is a stop line and a picture to show that he could not see the stop line from where he was sitting?
I got a ticket, Disobey stop sign, sec 136.1.a on dec 6th
I made a left in an intersection and was pulled over by a police officer in an unmarked car who had been sitting down the road. A classic fishing hole situation. I was genuinely surprised when he stopped me and told me I went through a stop sign without even slowing down. I know to shut up and be polite and take the ticket. I…
Yesterday morning, I rear-ended someone. I was going the speed limit. The sun was directly in front of me and it blinded my windshield and my eyes. At the same time, the person in front of me stopped/slowed down (also due to the sun). I started to slow down but didn't stop and I hit them since I couldn't see anything. I was not driving too close initially. I…
I was driving in the county at night and hit a limousine stretched out side ways across the road. The limo had its lights on and had side lighting as well. The police officer charged me with careless driving because it was "fully lit up".
It took me to the next day to figure out what had happened - what I remember made no sense. What I had run across was a "false visual reference" illusion.
I was on hwy 37 trying to make my girlfriends ganadmas mass and I live an hour away and I had an hour to get there so I was going fast but not 50 over untill some idiot got on my tail soo close that I was to concentrated on him that I kept going faster untill I got pulled over at 147 on an 80 km hwy.
I alreaddy lost 3 points and this time was just the…
Hello, got stopped today for rolling a stop sign. Ticket says failure to stop, but quotes hta 1361b.
Doesn't 1361b mean failure to yield?
Is this a fatal error? Or could it be amended at trial. How can I prepare a defence if I don't know if I'm defending the failure to stop or the failure to yield?
After he was providing me with a ticket for failure to obey to the stop sign (I am pretty sure I stopped but less than 3 seconds recommended by my driver ed. instructor), I know everybody say that..as an excuse.
Then he stopped me again to return the documents.
Any advice and feed back would be really appreciated.
Can you get evidence for whether someone had an advanced green at an intersection? My dad was making a right turn on a red (after stopping) into a plaza parking lot. He got hit by someone making a left turn from the opposite lane. The driver told the officer called to the collision that he had an advance green. My dad said he came out of nowhere which makes me…
So i was driving on Eglinton Avenue East near Rosemount Ave.
The school bus was on the the curb on the opposite side of the road while i was travelling on the middle lane of the three-laned Eglinton Avenue East (five lanes apart plus a raised median island seperating the traffic)
I could not see the school bus as my view of the bus was being obstructed by the cars in front of me and on my left hand…
Lots of good information on getting disclosure from the Crown here.
Now, I am just wondering if I will be relying upon evidence of my own at trial... do I have to voluntarily send this material to the Crown in a reasonable time before the trial, or only if they request disclosure from me?
This morning I had an exam for university. I was studying the entire night and i wanted to catch like maybe 1-2 hours of sleep before the exam so i went to sleep. I woke up like 5 hrs after and realize that I was about to miss my exam. I still could have made it so I asked my dad for his car since I was in a huge rush and he gave it to me.
I went on the highway and I was going at 135 km/h but…
the police officer was in in the opesite oncumming lane he was fallowing another car so close that i was not even able to see his cruser till he was buy he said that i was going 111 in a 80 he said he hade me on radar he only asked for me drivers licencs and never asked for my insurence so on the ticket there no insurence dose enyone think i can beat this i wana take it to cort becuse he was…
Hi I have a couple questions so I'll explain my situation and any advice would be appreciated.
Can't remember exact date so lets call it some time in 2008 I got a fine for $5000.00 for driving without in insurance. I never paid the fine and in 2012 I was pulled over and the officer asked to see my license. Although I had it on me I figured it would be under suspension for the unpaid fine from…
Alright, so I did something really stupid the other day, I was driving down a country road and wanted to hit the curves so I passed 3 cars at once, inadvertently making it up to very much past 50 over (80 limit)... Much to my chagrin there was a cop coming in the opposite direction who immediately skidded on the gravel shoulder and who I thought was 100% going to turn around and pull me over,…
Anyone know how backed this courthouse is? I submitted my ticket for trial at the end of August, and still no letter. Im scared it got lost in the mail, can i call the courthouse and find out my courtdate? Or would i have to go in personally?
I recently received a ticket for failure to use low beams - while following - Ticket was issued Sec 168 (
- it was on the 401 and no one was within 500 meters of me, I was warning a oncoming vehicle that there was an officer hiding (which is not illegal or I could not find a law against it) it was a police vehicle travelling at very high rate of speed in the opposite direction with no lights on…
I received a warning letter from MTO for a 2pts ticket.What happened is that the police officer issued a "unsafe left turn" and then changed the ticket to "failed to signal" at the scene, but she submitted both tickets!!! And I !!!ONLY!!! received the latter ticket from her(I requested trial for "failed to signal"). I recently received notice from MTO that I'm convicted for "unsafe left turn".
Hello everyone! I was given a ticket for using a hand-held communication device while driving. It was 3 am, I was at a stop light and the cop saw me with the my phone in my hand. I told him i was just checking the time on it. I received the notes a few weeks ago ill copy them down below. Any help is appreciated although i believe there's no hope for me. The cop recorded me saying what phone i…
I got pulled over about 15 or so days ago the court till this date has not received the summons what is the legal time period that the court has to follow to accept the summons from the office court says its 15 days is the legal timeframe the officer has to serve it on the court
I requested for disclosure of information two months ago.
I received the radar manual after one month, but not others (including maintenance/calibration record of the radar, certificate of police training). On further pursuit, the prosecutor told me that he did not have them and he did not see why I needed these documents. He said he did not know where to get them when I asked.
Last Friday I was pulled over by an OPP motorcycle cop who informed me I was going 134. I was on the SB 404, I did see him parked under a bridge and when I passed him he was not on his bike.
I'm hoping to get some insight for a defense in this case.
I was in lane 1 and I had a car in front of me, and a car behind me, also there was a car speeding down Lane 3 passing everyone and moved quickly into…
