Ontariohighwaytrafficact.com

I went to court for 81km in a 50km zone. Ticketed for 70km. Advised by prosecutor he would raise to 81km if I plead innocent.

I plead innocent. During trial it was established officer self-tested gun before and after with negative interference. She stated she made a visual estimation of my speed at 75m and that I appeared to be speeding. Radar lock at approximately 50m.

In my cross examination I asked why she had only been radar gun trained once in the last 15 years. Officer claimed she had been doing other types of police work. I asked her how long to make a visual estimation of speed. She claimed 1 to 2 seconds. I introduced satellite photos showing major obstructions in terms of trees, electrical poles, electrical power lines running both adjacent and diagonally to her and a house with a front porch. The satellite photographs were from Google and had scaling factor at bottom. I had officer mark her location and distance where she first made visual estimation. She marked her location in the entrance of community centre which I immediately questioned since she was in the parking lot in reality and would've been blocking the entrance. Where she marked her initial visual estimation of my speed was less than 75m away.

At this point I jumped on her testimony stating it was mathematically inconsistent with reality. A car travelling 80km/hr is going approximately 22m/s. Even if she could make a true visual estimation of speed in 1 second she still needs to aim the gun through all kinds of obstacles and get a lock which couldn't possibly happen at 50 metres out which happens at approximately 1 second after the start of her visual estimation. Asked officer if gun had ever been externally validated with tuning fork or maintained by her according to missing ontario sections of operating manual. She answered no and didn't know if gun had been maintained by anyone.

In closing I mentioned that I was calling into question the officer's lack of training and the accuracy of the gun. Not only had this gun never been maintained or externally verified through tuning fork of known frequency none of Ontario provincial radar guns had been. I stated I was specifically calling into question the accuracy of the gun meaning the whole gun including the self-testing feature of the gun which is internal to the gun itself. I stated that the radar gun couldn't verify it's own accuracy and that according to auditing and mathematical concepts there needs to be external verification sampling to establish odds, certainty and therefore the whole concept of reasonable doubt couldn't be established. I also stated her observation of appeared to be speeding isn't consistent with 80 in a 50 and her distance observations regarding visual estimation of speed and radar lock were mathematically impossible.

The judge addressed none of the mathematical proofs or auditing and mathematical concepts in terms of being a requirement to establish reasonable doubt. I think the judge was mathematically challenged and didn't understand the scientific realities of the situation.

How should I appeal. The whole court system is a tax based joke that I still want to fight.

If it was radar as opposed to lidar then there is no aiming involved. She sees your car and hits a button and gets a reading.

It was a ghd radar gun.

A visual estimation of a car going 80km/hr through all kinds of trees, electrical poles and a Crest in a hill would take more than a second,would it not? She originally said 2 seconds and then modified to 1 to 2 seconds. You still have to point radar gun in general direction of my car, observe that my car is lone vehicle in beam, press a button, and get a radar lock. Just the pressing of the button takes time not to mention moving the gun in direction of my car. Even if radar lock is instantaneous (i'm doubtfull that there is such a thing as instantaneous radar lock) at least another second has passed. So now we are adding at least another second on to the 1 to 2 seconds for visual estimation which is another very aggressive estimation. So we are talking 2 to 3 seconds at the very least. At 80km/hr my car would have travelled 45m at 2 seconds and over 65m at the 3 second mark. She claimed this sequence of events happened in 25m or approximately 1 second. Math and common sense don't support her testimony.

Personally I would definitely appeal this!

Just a point of clarification... this would have been in front of Justice of the Peace and not a Judge. If you go to appeal, it will be in front of Judge. Judge's have more training/understanding of the law, so this is a good thing.

I agree with your issue about radar not being externally verified, however the courts do not agree with us on this, and have stated that the officer simply needs to test the device according to the manufacturers procedure. Did you have the portion of the manual with this test procedure in it? If you did, then this is probably not going to help you at appeal (but never hurts to try). If you did NOT have the test procedure portion of the manual but asked for it, then this would be good point to raise at appeal on not being able to properly question officer on their knowledge of test procedure.

I believe that there is case law somewhere saying that officers need to be re-certified every couple of years. So you could definitely challenge this issue. Improper training should bring reasonable doubt to the radar reading.

And of course the math is another area I would definitely challenge as well which will help.

If the courts don't agree with you then you'd better have the wallet to go to the Supreme Court.

Your timings don't make sense. Car is seen to be exceeding the limit. Courts have held that exact estimate is not needed. Button is pushed, reading obtained. You don't have to be the only car in the beam, there is no aiming required (if she's running radar then the instrument is already pointed your way) and reading is obtained in a split second. One second tops for the whole event.

I wish you luck but I wouldn't be spending any money on the arguments you present here.

V = d/t

D = 25m *

T = 2 s **

V = 25/2 = 12.5m/s or 45km/hr

The officer's statements contradict the radar gun reading.

* officer claimed visual estimation started at 75 metre and ended with a radar lock at 50 metres.

** officer claimed visual estimation took 2 seconds and then she obtained radar reading which isn't instantaneous.

Jsherk,

I printed the manufacturer's online manual and tried to get admitted. Prosecutor claimed hearsay and justice agreed.

Also tried to get admitted cellphone photos showing cops vantage point with all the trees, power lines and poles and front porch my car had to go through between 100m to 50m. Justick insisted that if I wanted to submit cell phone photos they would confiscate my phone for 45 days and view everything on it. Seemed like bs to me but I decided to go with just satellite photos.

I really want to hear the argument refuting my argument that case law states you can't presume the accuracy of the radar gun and the self-testing mechanism is part of the gun so therefore falls under the same presumption. It goes against auditing principles too. Therefore self-testing goes against my legal rights of not having the radar gun presumed to be accurate without any external verification as to its accuracy.

To get photos admitted as evidence you need to print them out with a date stamp on at a place like walmart. However even if you can't get them admitted as evidence, you should still be able to show them to the officer while they are on the stand and ask them question about them.

Did you specifically try to get photos/manual admitted as evidence before you tried to ask questions about them? Or did you just try to ask questions about them and the prosecutor objected to that?

Did you ask for the manual in your disclosure request before the trial?

If you can get a Judge to accept your argument about needing external verification for radar, then I am all for that! It certainly won't hurt to try. You should read this thread:

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic7182.html

And also this thread for an appeal that was prepared by paralegal:

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic7286.html

I asked for electronic copy of manual before trial as part of my disclosure request. Was told by prosecutor I could only view manual by arranging appointment. I stated I had a job and didn't have time. I did view briefly though after early resolution meeting. I then asked prosecutor in follow-up to please comment on missing sections of manual and provide reasons for omissions as it was integral to my defense. Prosecutor stated he was not required to comment on that for disclosure but to feel free to arrange an appointment.

I specifically asked justice to get online copy of manual admitted as evidence during trial. I was denied upon objection by prosecutor. In spite of this I read from the manual during closing argument including section 8.3 tuning fork test and ( I think 11.3 ) radar case law stating tuning fork necessity by manufacturer as well as being an auditing requirement (external verification).

I was advised pretrial when I stated I lost my cellphone printouts on way to trial that if I wanted to use my actual cellphone gallery my phone would be confiscated for 45 days and they would have complete access to anything on it. Again to me that seemed like utter bs.

You must have had an old manual because they removed the tuning fork test requirement from all the manuals in 2010. So as far as the courts are concerned, as long as the officer does the test listed in the manual then this is prmia facia evidence it was working correctly. If the manufacture does not require a tuning fork then it is not necessary. Of course, like you, I disagree with this decision but thats what they decided.

Did you bring up the issue of disclosure at the start of the trial, complaining that you did not get a copy of the manual? They should at least have provided a copy of the front page and the testing procedure page. Again I think there is some case law saying they do not have to provide the whole manual unless you give a good reason why you should have it. My opinion (without reading the transcript of course) is that you have a good appeal argument here are well.

The other argument you might be able to make is that the Justice of the Peace (JP) did not provide you with the help that they are suppose to give to self-represented individuals.

I would file for the appeal and then you will need to order official copies of the transcript from trial (which you must pay for yourself). If you want to share it, I would be willing to read thru it and give my opinion (which is not legal advice).

As far as cellphone goes, if you bring something to court that is being admitted as evidence, then they get to keep it. Want to bring video to court? Well make sure you have copied them onto an external USB stick or they will want to keep your laptop or whatever device they are on. Same thing applies to pics... print them out at walmart or put them on USB stick that they can keep.

The manual wasn't old though. I printed it directly from manufacturer's website the day before trial. Decatur sells their manual with the tuning fork test section (section 8.3) to most every government except ontario.

I complained about disclosure pretrial. The example I gave was since the officer couldn't remember most of the specifics of her training and she only had been trained once in the last 15 years that I wanted documentation and proof of her being certified to operate ghd. Prosecutor refused my disclosure request stating it was evidentiary. I told justice disclosure wasn't satisfied and had email copies of my disclosure requests which went through his administration clerk but signed with his name.

I received testing page but testing page is incomplete. Again in disclosure with prosecutor I stated my concern that there were missing sections of the manual when compared to original online manual of Decatur manufacturer and wanted to know why as part of my defence.

Right after trial on April 26th, I asked for copies of transcripts and for paperwork for appeal request.

I think the appeal would be justice provided insufficient rational for her conclusion. I also think some of her conclosions were plain wrong. I stated that the officer's observation of appeared to be speeding wasn't a strong enough statement given the fact her gun supposedly clocked me at 80 in the 50. As well, I stated the gun's reading wasnt mathematically supported by the time frames and distances laid out that were marked on the satellite map by the officer. The justice stated officer's testimony supported reading. I truly believe the justice was probably mathematically illiterate as I stated the math case very clearly and she never addressed it in her conclusions. She was having trouble interpreting satellite photos that were clearly marked and I kept having to explain how to read them. I even had to explain there was a scaling factor at bottom of printout when asked if they were to scale. I texted my boss beforehand and made the comment that I was worried that judge/justice wasn't mathematical enough to understand math basis of my arguments. Many people are mathematically illiterate but I was hoping for more from justice. She stated my only argument could have been extenuating circumstances after guns reading but if the officer's testimony mathematically disproves the radar gun reading I think the reading has to be tossed especially considering external calibration and maintenance issues I brought up and how I demanded external verification of guns accuracy in court.

Definitely dowload the transcript and appeal that was prepared at this thread http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic7286.html because there are some good similarities with your case.

I do not believe we can convince the courts that tuning forks are needed until somebody can afford to bring a certified expert witness to their trial. Again you can always try, but without an expert witness to counter the manufacturers manual, it is near impossible.

The proper manual (or the manual that the courts recognize in Ontario) for the GHD is "GHD Scout User's Manual - Canada Variant Rev 25/Aug/2010" and this version of the manual has the tuning fork test removed. Again I agree with you that there should be an external test, but without an expert witness you are pretty much wasting your breath.

Read this thread as well:

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic7182.html

I've never seen a manual listed on the Decatur website. Could you provide us with the link where you found it?

There are quite a few copies of manuals online and I've yet to see a copy of the Canadian manual.

jsherk is correct, tuning forks have no been used for quite some time. The standard for testing is simply to follow the manufacturers instructions. The is usually a test prior to and at the end of the enforcement cycle. (Start and end of shift)

http://www.decatureurope.com/uploads/Br ... 0-10-E.pdf

Decatur Electronics (XURSH, Inc.

Auratie 9, 67600 Kokkola, Finland

Tel: +358 207 528 508

Fax: +358 207 528 579

www.DecaturEurope.com

With regards to prima facie evidence being established I observed these cases:

Regina v. Williams [2008]

"However a 'reasonable doubt' might be raised regarding the accuracy of a speed measurement where an operator is not qualified or has no experience or has no training in the operation of as peed measurement device or system. Similarly, where a mechanical speed detection device is utilized, the prosecutor may wish to call evidence, although it is not necessary to do so, that the device has been properly maintained and tested prior to operation. Certainly, these questions would be asked by the defense if not explored by the prosecution, the defence attempting to raise a 'reasonable doubt' as to the accuracy of the rate of speed indicated'.

I asked the officer if she has every maintained her radar gun as per manual's recommendations and section including maintenance and repair log. She answered no. I then followed up if she knew if her radar gun had ever been maintained. She answered no.

I asked for proof in cross-examination for her radar gun certification since I asked for it in disclosure and was told in was evidentiary. She couldn't provide it.

In the discussion of Baie Comeau (which I used in my conclusion):

"Baie Comeau does not stand for the proposition that it is an essential element of the offence to test every speed detection device with a tuning fork, particularly where it is not deemed necessary by the manufacturer and there is no evidence before the court casting any doubt upon the prima facie accuracy of the speed detection device."

The Justice was in over her head with regarding the basis of my argument and just stated prima facie had been established without addressing any of the reasonable doubts I had established.

1) There was no proof that the radar gun had every been maintained.

2) The radar guns had never been externally verified by a tuning fork which meant odds could not be established as to the accuracy of the testing device. I stated a radar gun's self test couldn't proof it's own accuracy and had never been externally verified. This isn't a case of establishing every speed detection device: none of the speed detection devices have been verified with a tuning fork. Huge difference. I hammered on the never being externally verified continually in my conclusion with a ton of stress and linked it back to auditing concepts.

3) The math shows the officer's observations had me doing 45km/hr casting doubt as to the 81km/hr reading.

4) Asked for officer's radar gun certification in disclosure and on stand. Was not provided it. Stated I didn't she was qualified to operate gun based on being trained only once in the last 14 years.

So I established a good deal of evidence for reasonable doubt that was never addressed. Justice needs to refute these reasonable doubt points before being able to state prima facie has been established. She didn't address any of my points because she hadn't memorized any previous cases where these types of arguments had been used so she went to her generic conviction conclusion ignoring my arguments out of fear.

Speedtaxed wrote:

V = d/t

D = 25m *

T = 2 s **

V = 25/2 = 12.5m/s or 45km/hr

The officer's statements contradict the radar gun reading.

* officer claimed visual estimation started at 75 metre and ended with a radar lock at 50 metres.

** officer claimed visual estimation took 2 seconds and then she obtained radar reading which isn't instantaneous.

So basically you're saying that guesstimates by the officer in time and distance trump the radar reading. Good luck with that.

Or perhaps you believe that the officer was EXACTLY 75 metres away when observation started and EXACTLY 50 metres away when radar lock was obtained and it took EXACTLY 2 seconds. You can believe that but the courts don't need to.

argyll wrote:

Speedtaxed wrote:

V = d/t

D = 25m *

T = 2 s **

V = 25/2 = 12.5m/s or 45km/hr

The officer's statements contradict the radar gun reading.

* officer claimed visual estimation started at 75 metre and ended with a radar lock at 50 metres.

** officer claimed visual estimation took 2 seconds and then she obtained radar reading which isn't instantaneous.

So basically you're saying that guesstimates by the officer in time and distance trump the radar reading. Good luck with that.

Or perhaps you believe that the officer was EXACTLY 75 metres away when observation started and EXACTLY 50 metres away when radar lock was obtained and it took EXACTLY 2 seconds. You can believe that but the courts don't need to.

I had her mark it on the satellite map with scaling and points of reference. Confirmed "Guesstimation".

She isn't able to make visual estimations and get radar lock under 2 seconds. No rationale person could believe that especial since visual estimation needs passage of time.

If she isn't able to make accurate estimations as to distance then she shouldn't be a police officer because you need to be able to accurately observe distance to make estimations regarding velocity. If that is the case, that she can't make accurate visual assessments we just have a radar gun to go on which has never been maintained or calibrated and is being operated by a person of questionable skill.

Well you clearly have the argument fixed in your head. It's a shame I'm out of the country because I'd enjoy watching the trial. Police officers routinely make speed estimations followed by radar lock very quickly and with remarkable accuracy due to practice. If a vehicle crests a hill I could guesstimate the speed and get a lock in time to see the vehicles speed drop like a stone as the driver saw the cruiser. You seem to be arguing that the officer is making physics calculations in her head based on time and distance which isn't the case - it's a visual recognition that a vehicle is going a certain speed. We do it in training, we do it every day on the road and we're very good at it.

But as I say, I'm not going to convince you so good luck.

Visual speed estimation is also no longer required for evidence. Simple testimony indicatiimg that the motor vehicle was above the maximum speed is all that's necessary.

So I had my appeal Thursday August 25th.

Stated to judge the officer testified she first saw me at 75m, did the visual estimation at between 70-60 and had the lock at 50m.

The officer stated the first visual happened at just before the blue house and when she maintained line of sight it was as I was passing the blue house immediately to her right. I found GPS coordinates of those two locations by tagging them in Google on the Westbound lane of Huron street and compared the distance to entrance of Haysville community centre. Verified distances were 77m and 65 for start of visual estimation. Therefore no reason to think further 50 metre lock estimation is a bad one. I told the judge the officer stated visual estimation took 1-2 seconds and clarified 2 seconds on follow-up. We know V=d/t. I will give the benefit to the prosecutor for both time and distance estimations even though presumption of innocence is mine and we have V=(65-45)/1.5 and 48km/hr calculation, which is below the speed limit and severely contradicting the radar gun reading of 81k/hr and immediately casting into doubt the radar gun reading.

I then told judge lower courts are just using prima facie evidence of self-test of radar gun and officer's testimony of radar gun reading as a rubber stamp for convictions.

Judge agreed that machines aren't infallible and that he read there are 50,000 lines of algorithms which are sometimes 10 percent wrong. He asked prosecutor is there a law in place that could break the infallibility of the prima facie testimony of the radar gun. The prosecutor stated no since it is strictly a prima facie case (which in my mind is another way of saying you are guilty no matter what since we desperately need to protect our revenue stream and only pretend to have presumption of innocence for defendant.) There was a lot of back and forth with the judge telling David Dyer to lower his voice and not get angry a couple of times. The judge turns to me and states this is a very interesting case but he needs evidence to dispute officer and that I should have taken the stand at original trial. I asked if I could take the stand now. Judge answers no. I stated math is the ultimate witness and is the absolute truth and even though the officer didn't testify against her own radar gun reading her underlying observations and estimations backed with math and corroborated with GPS calculations of referenced objects is evidence that gives reason to doubt the radar gun's accuracy. Judge stated math can't be used while I was thinking our system of law in Ontario is a joke and has been designed top down to protect a revenue tax stream if system of justice now diverges with math.

I then try to introduce case law (for different Genesis gun - Ontario currently uses both).

Ontario Court of Justice R. v. Russell L. Hawkins 20090106 p 3

"6.4 Tracking History

For each enforcement action taken by the police with respect to a speeding offence arising out of the use of this radar unit a tracking history shall consist of:

1) A visual observation of an approaching or receding vehicle...

2) Having made the visual observation and estimate of the rate of speed, the radar unit will be placed in operational mode

3) Note, that the target displayed on the radar unit is consistent and confirms the officer's initial observations and estimate, and that the audio tracking tome emitted by the radar unit is consistent with the visual observations and the target speed displayed.

4) Absence of any one of the above tracking history components and NO ENFORCEMENT ACTION shall be undertaken."

Prosecutor looked up the case and stated it was for the different radar gun. I stated it was for the same manufacturer and was required operating procedures for their radar guns and that NO ENFORCEMENT ACTION should have been taken by officer.

I told the Judge I tried to enter the original radar gun manual as evidence which shows that section 11.3 "Tuning Fork Test" had been purposefully dropped in Ontario. It is obvious from other provinces that the tuning fork test is still a requirement and the same radar gun cant operate differently in Ontario. Judge stated I need to learn how to enter evidence into court properly and that I was asking very interesting questions.

I then quoted the case of R. v. Andrianov, 2015 ONCJ 197 [section 8]

"It is not an essential element of the offence that the officer who observed a speeding offence and wrote the ticket be 'qualified' in any particular manner according to Ontario law; however it would appear in the Alberta [case of] R. v. Werenka, [1981, 11 M.V.R. 280 (Alta, Q.B] the Crown is required to prove that the operator of a speed detection device is qualified by virtue of (i) following a course, (ii) passing an exam successfully, (iii) having several months of required experience. It would appear that the issue of being 'qualified in Ontario must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt on a standard less defined than it is in Alberta...

A reasonable doubt might be raised regarding the accuracy of a speed measurement where the operator is not qualified...Similarly, where a speed detection device is utilized, the prosecution may wish to call evidence, although it is not necessary to do so, that the device has been properly maintained... Certainly these questions would be asked by the defence if not explored by the prosecution, the defence attempting to raise a 'reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the rate of speed indicated."

I stated for training a standard less defined for Ontario doesnt imply a standard less strict and that is why judge used Alberta definition. The officer was only trained once in the last 14 years and I had not been provided proof that she passed a radar gun test even though I asked for it repeatedly during disclosure and while she was on the stand. I also requested it under the Freedom of Information act and was denied. <I also asked David Dyer for it before the appeal for her training records via email and told him that he lacked integrity and that he was suppressing evidence and if this wasnt the case give me a plausible reason for not providing the officers training records which he couldnt –didnt mention that though in the appeal >

I asked for the maintenance log for the radar gun and asked officer if she had maintained the gun. The officer stated no to question and that waterloo regional police didnt maintain gun. This is reasonable doubt according to case law.

The judge started to argue with prosecutor about responsibility of radar gun maintenance. Prosecutor stated it was 3rd party and that I needed to get 3rd party records. The judge then declared he would make a ruling and to come back in 3 hours (I am always the last case to go in my 3Abs this year).

Judge came back and stated the prosecutor was right. I needed to testify in order to have evidence to the contrary of radar gun for him to be able to take my mathematical evidence into account and would have probably won if I had testified to my innocence during original trial. He repeated that I asked very interesting questions but needed to get lawyer to introduce expert witnesses since it is a very complicated process. Judge then allowed me to go on my tirade and I did.

I stated a system of law that diverges from mathematical evidence which is absolute truth is just a system of rules and not justice. How can the radar gun operate in Ontario without needing to be externally calibrated but in other provinces it does need to be calibrated? Everyone is this court knows the radar gun reading was disproven by the V=d/t test which is an external test which should be all the evidence required to dispute the radar gun reading. The reason Ontario dropped the tuning fork test from the user manual was to get false convictions and all this has come out in the papers. I turned to the prosecutor and his assistant and stated the next ticket I get I will get expert testimony and blow through prima facie precedent.

Judge told me not to be so cynical, that he understood the question about the radar gun and how the user manual is different across provinces and that it is relevant question, and not to wish for another ticket. He then upheld the conviction and I walked out of court.

Through all this I still dont understand why I need to testify to have evidence that contradicted the radar gun reading. If the officer claimed that my car was going 300km/hr and that the radar gun self-tested positively could I not claim the mathematically impossibility of the claim since my car doesnt go that fast without my testimony of innocence? I proved a mathematical impossibility from the officers testimony and her distance estimations were pinned to objects and validated as accurate through GPS coordinates and calculations.

How would this case play out in the court of public opinion? What if I took it to the Kitchener Record with my court transcript? Will the appeal get published at some point so that there is transparency (I dont want to pay another $400 for transcripts)?

This is awesome that you did the appeal! Most people are not willing to go that far! So congratualtions on at least trying.

I agree with you that math, based on the officers own testimony, should not require you to take the stand to prove it. However, based on how appeals work, new evidence like GPS co-ordinates and distances that were NOT given during the original trial, do not need to be accepted by the Judge. I am not saying that it is right, just saying that is how it works.

One way to get that information added, is to ask the officer about it directly when they are on the stand. Another way is to bring a friend with a math degree so they could be considered an expert witness when it comes to math calculations and ask them the questions. A third way is to take the stand to tell them all the information you want told (but hopefully by this time you "don't remember" how fast you were actually going or you do remember that you were going the speed limit or less than the speed limit... but never lie on the stand as you will get in much more trouble.)

In the court of public opinion you would most likely have won because you bring up a lot of good points. Unfortunately those in charge do not really care about the court of public opinion.

The transcript will NOT get published anywhere. You will have to pay for and request an official transcript yourself.

It would be great if you could get some newspapers to cover a story on stuff like this. I hope you can!

I've just showed this to two family members and two friends all of who are quite left wing and suspicious of the police. The consensus was that police should nedd to be re-trained and maintenance records are relevant but that your maths argument was splitting hairs. They said that of course if the math showed you weren't going 300 kms an hour if that were claimed then that would be relevant but when it is the difference between 25/50/75 metres and 1/2 second then the argument makes you appear desperate. I'm sure there will be differing results in the 'court of public opinion' but there's some feedback for you.

Good luck getting a paper even vaguely interested.

Argyll I get your bias. I am not above bias either, I think cops are f'ing parasites. I ran occurrence data from the WRPS for 2014 that shows how many tickets were issued and when. For this one school location I was interested in it shows cops issued 19 tickets between 8-9am and 3 tickets between 9am-10am. Guess how many one and dones there were in the 8-9am timeframe? There were 17 out of 18. However the cops are saying they were there for school safety. So they leave the area after they get the one rush hour traffic ticket and don't bother to stay for school hour. Absolutely pathetic. I learned about this kind of data from the Kitchener Record which posts interactive maps of officer's favourite locations and how their top spots aren't often in zones which are safety concerns.

I walk my dog at 7:30am in the morning. In August I saw a cop take off like a bat out of hell after a speeder. When he came back to the location we had a discussion about how pathetic he was using a school zone and private property to enforce a bullshit 40km/hr zone when kids aren't even in school. He was accelerating full out and going 90km to get a speeder going 60km/hr. I noticed he didn't even maintain line of sight on the car since I had a better vantage point but of course he will testify in court he did to keep the tax revenue. I filed a complaint against the officer and told him I was way more concerned about his speed and my children than the mark he was going after. The next time I saw him with my 4 year old son at 7:30am in the morning in August buddy took off 5 minutes later. I sure hope I haven't killed his honey pot ticketing location for him.

Most everyone I know, think police are corrupt and aren't people serving people but people serving fat politicians. No one I know thinks police officers care about safety or that is the reason they are issuing traffic tickets. You don't hear the real truth since the people you are talking with know your background. The cops and the judicial system is in a bubble. Outside of their domain of influence and power most people know the real deal and have no respect for them.

So if you want to talk about someone looking desperate and disingenuous just ask a cop why he issues speeding tickets.

You clearly haven't read enough of my posts. I agree there are fishing holes (that's what we call them) that get cops quota tickets (there are no quotas but it looks better on your assessment if you get more tickets) and that frustrated the hell out of me.

What also frustrated me are those who say that all cops are parasites. There are many many many of us who care deeply for our communities and stick it to those who wrote stupid tickets. But while the bosses write assessments based on numbers you'll get those who 'play the game'.

But so long as people like you see all cops as the enemy then that divide will be there. Instead criticise those chips who are poor at their work. I don't know what you do but let's say you are an accountant or in construction. Wouldn't you frustrated if someone (everyone) said that all accountants/ construction workers were crooked based on the actions of a few.

Oh and you don't know my circles of family and friends - they are ANYTHING but inclined to support the police lol

So you are sitting in your cop car hiding and waiting for someone going 20km/hr over the speed limit at 8:30am in July. You care deeply about the community. The person you pull over is doing 81km/hr in a 50km/hr zone or that is at least what your radar flashes. He has never beaten his wife or robbed someone, done drugs past alcohol and then only in moderation, and has a family with a wife that wants to go back to school. This person has never had a traffic accident and is in no way a dangerous driver. The fine is $200+ in a community zone but the real kicker is the insurance rate hike. The reason you are there is because the department needs revenue to pay for the high salaries of civil servants at the public trough making 50% more than they would in the private sector for the same skill-set. The job is way more about chasing tax revenue than chasing bad guys. The job is basically a mafia-like shakedown of the working class.

If you didn't know this was the real job of a police officer when you first started you would have to have figured it out by the first year. Even you stated the more tickets you hand out the better it looks come evaluation time.

No one likes a shakedown though. Even if the law legalizes it and states the speeding ticket is about community safety.

I will say that I respect officers more than prosecutors though since their job is more difficult. Claiming prima facie evidence of self-testing of radar gun and getting officer to take the stand to read off what he clocked someone at to make 130K is a complete joke. That is all prosecutors are doing right now in the Ontario lower courts besides cutting backroom deals pre-trial so they don't have to go to court.

So you think 81 in a 50 is fine. What about 90.....or 100 ? 120 ?

Speedtaxed wrote:

Argyll I get your bias. I am not above bias either, I think cops are f'ing parasites.

So if you want to talk about someone looking desperate and disingenuous just ask a cop why he issues speeding tickets.

So you get one big ticket in how many years of driving and you're whining like a little kid? I'm probably the last one to talk, but I've racked up numerous tickets (like more than I can count on my fingers) in 5 years. I'll agree, there are some nitpickers here and there (like the one that busted me for not using my signal, or the one for doing exactly 10 over), but there are some nice ones out there. Officer's are put on the road to ensure safety. If you think that doing 81 km/h on a road that is designated for 50 km/h, let alone it is a community safety zone as well, is safe, you're sadly mistaken. Honestly, if you were doing 60 km/h, you might have been let off with just a warning, or not even pulled over at all.

Traffic Enforcement is to make the roads safer. If some nut was doing 81 in a residential, community safety zone, with kids playing, if I was an officer, for sure I'd nab them. Let's say someone's child decides to run across the road, with you doing 81 km/h, would you be able to stop your car in enough time not to hit them? Probably not. That's why speed limits have been put in place. To protect the citizens from idiotic drivers. I'll agree if you get pinched for 60 in a 50, that's just horses**t, but anything more, you deserve a ticket.

No, I'm not a cop. Furthest thing from a cop. Think I was pulled over 13 times last year or so, 6 times already this year. But multiple times I have been let off with warnings, or tickets (majority of them I deserved). It's also how you play it off. If you roll down your window a crack saying "I'm only giving you my license because I'm required to do so, but it is not voluntary" of course your asking for a ticket. Arguing with them, and making excuses roadside doesn't help either. Just be sincere, and apologize. I got let off a few 50+ overs with that move right there.

Rant Done.

I appreciate your detailed account.

I also used math to show the impossibility of the speeding ticket I was given. However, my case differs from yours in that I met with the crown before trial and laid out my case, after which the officer changed his story and the charge was dropped so there was never a trial.

I'm also not 100% clear on why the judge said "the prosecutor was right....... your math was inadmissible (paraphrasing)". It would seem you touched on the math defense in the original trial therefore I'm not sure why you couldn't revisit it. Perhaps you didn't get all your math in......But I'm no legal expert.

Did you ever get to view the manual? In my case (moving radar not handheld) there is alot the officer must do to get an actionable reading and he didn't have time to get it done.

Who is Dyer?