111 in 80 (reduced to 95) - on a hill, I have a dash-cam.

Posts: 2
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 2:50 pm

111 in 80 (reduced to 95) - on a hill, I have a dash-cam.

by: TboneSteele on
Mon May 13, 2013 3:22 pm

Hi. I always seem to have bad luck in the brant county area.

This time I was following a pickup truck down a deep hill and back up the other side. Once the road was level again I drove on for a while then noticed the flashing lights behind me.
I pulled over and he asked if I knew why he had stopped me. I guessed he must have been watching somewhere sneakily while I went down that hill, since it's steep and you gain speed. I told him he must have caught me going down that hill too fast. He said downhill or not, the limit is the limit. Told me I had been going 111km/h (I wasn't going over 100 even on the downhill side - my truck would get shaky...) Reduced it to 95.

I bothered me that I had no idea where this guy had been sitting to nail me. I hadn't seen a thing before the hill or going down it. I'm actually pretty cautious on that hill because there's a gravel road to the right just after the hill where cops do sit to nail people coming up too fast, and I'm always down to sub 90 km/h before I hit that peak.

But, lucky for me, I have one of those windshield mounted cameras. I looked the video later that day and saw where he nailed me.
When I was coming up the hill, just about to the peak, he came over the peak and instantly his lights were on.

So, a few things. First, I know I wasn't doing 111 or even 95 by that time. I know that doesn't matter.
Second, it looked like he reacted pretty damn quick to click his lights on the second he saw me.
Third, there was certainly the pickup truck in front of me (going faster by the this time) and there could have been a car behind me.
Fourth, given how steep this hill is, he clearly lost sight of whatever car he did get on radar.

So any advice here. I know it's just $52.50 or whatever but it annoys me. I don't feel better about getting a $50 ticket just because he said it could be much worse.
I'm going to request disclosure of course.
Is my camera evidence any good? How could I show it to a prosecutor or the court? You'd have to watch a few minutes of it and pick out street signs to know it was the the relevant video. Will anyone actually do that?
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 8:42 am

by: tdottopcop on
Mon May 13, 2013 7:47 pm

First: if your car 'shakes' when you go faster than 100km, and is clearly a vehicle in tip-top shape, I somehow doubt your speedometer is more accurate than the laser or radar the officer was operating.

Second: So?

Third: So? They didn't get stopped, you did.

Fourth: How is it clear he lost sight of you?

The video will not be relevant to the case unless it has evidence that can support your defence. I'm not sure what your defence is. Some cameras have gps speedometers on the display, so when you watch the video, it shows how fast you were going. Unfortunately, courts are reluctant to accept this evidence as these devices are unreliable when detecting speed.
No, I am not the chief of Toronto Police.
No, I do not work for Toronto Police...
... it is just a name folks :)
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 2:50 pm

by: TboneSteele on
Tue May 14, 2013 10:29 am

1. The speedometer agrees with my GPS. My tires are all the stock size. My speedometer is fine. One of my wheels was out of balance and it got shaky at 100 - big deal. I didn't get a ticket for having a wheel out of balance.
2. He either had his finger on the button hoping to catch some guy on the other side of that hill, or, more likely, he got the truck in front of me on radar which was cresting the hill.
3. Same point as #2, it could have been the truck in front of me (which was going faster) on radar, or someone behind me.
4. This hill is very steep. It was a good thirty seconds after I had crested the hill before I saw the cop car. There is no visibility between cars on the high road and cars going down or up the hill. That's likely why cops often wait at the dirt road at the top of the hill.

My defense is that he likely tagged the truck in front of me, or possibly one coming down the hill behind me. He lost site of whatever car he tagged for quite a while, so he just pulled me over.
The video shows how quickly his lights came on from the time his car is first visible. Not only does this show he likely tagged the truck in front of me, it also makes me wonder if there is a minimum distance for radar. Can they get a reading on moving radar at a distance of 75 feet at the most?
User avatar
Posts: 2933
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!


by: hwybear on
Tue May 14, 2013 7:11 pm

no minimum distance for radar (easily obtain a reading in less than a second), radars are capable of obtaining readings from 2 or more vehicles, being within 75ft, most likely the truck in front is past the radar, therefore you are the solo vehicle
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Post Reply
  • Similar Topics

Return to “Exceeding the speed limit by 30 to 49 km/h”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest