Going 50 over the limit

If the speed limit is 50, and you do 100+, not only do you get 6 points. Your car gets impounded for a week, and your license suspended for 7 days, along with a hefty fine of at least $2000. The penalty is actually the same as for racing. The law came in effect on October 1, 2007. Remember - street racers are accidents which have not happened yet. Please drive safe and do not race.

thats a really crappy rule, because if you are speeding, it doesn't mean you are street racing. And sometimes, the 401 is soo empty and everyone is doing at least 140+

Well my friend was actually going 148 when the police stopped him on the high way..but they didn't suspend his license, all he got was a 300 dollar fine and he is a G2 driver. Maybe it was because he was a student...but i think it should still be considered "racing" if you are going that fast.

I think this is a stupid rule. Its not fast drivers that cause accidents, its the stupid drivers that do. I think a ticket is fine, but a getting ur license suspended and car impounded is an extreme.

I completely agree with ayza85. There are people who drive 1 km/h over the limit and manage to get into horrific accidents.

To clkio - I never said that "going 50 over limit" = "racing". I just said that the penalty is the same. However, if you DO race AND go 50 over the limit, that WILL land you 12 demerit points.... So do judge accordingly.

"racing" does not necessarily mean "street racing another car" racing. Speeding can indicate racing as in racing to get to your destination be it work, a social event etc.

My Bf just received a speeding ticket for going 141km/hr while going downhill on a 90 km/hr road near kenora. There was nobody on the road and he just let the car float. It reached 141 and he was getting pulled over. He was charged with racing, got a ticket, the car impounded for 7 days, his licence taken away and sent back to Manitoba (home), and he's being summoned to court in a month to see the judge for what his charges are to be.

On the summons section of the ticket, it says his court date is in 20008, whereas the rest of the document has 2008 everywhere...is this something that can be argued? He has past speeding offenses in Manitoba when he was younger, and one that was in the 30km/hr over section 8 months ago...that means that he didn't make it the 1 year probation term so it also counts...and he may be in huge trouble and pay for the 10,000 fine as well as go to jail.

Any opinions or suggestions??

We'd really appreciate it!! If people are speeding on the 401 with tonnes of other cars all going 140...they should all be pulled over, or those that go a little faster once in a while in no danger to anyone but themselves, there should be a little leniancy...no?

Your boyfriend sounds like a habitual speeder, that being said,I suggest you Lawyer up, not having legal representation would be suicide and a costly one at that!

I despise every aspect of this law!

Sign the Petition please!

tager576 wrote:

If people are speeding on the 401 with tonnes of other cars all going 140...they should all be pulled over, or those that go a little faster once in a while in no danger to anyone but themselves, there should be a little leniancy...no?

Absolutely NOT.

Do the laser/radar manuals not specify an accuracy tolerance of 2+/- kph?? I'm sure I read that on another forum somewhere.

This would make an enormous difference in this example.

Bookm wrote:

Do the laser/radar manuals not specify an accuracy tolerance of 2+/- kph?? I'm sure I read that on another forum somewhere.

Radar can round up the figure. For example, a speed of 140.3947 km/h would read 141 km/h. To offset the rounding error, there should be a reduction of 1 or 2 km/h. I can't remember where that's posted. FYST?

There is a massive amount of technical info on radar and laser use at http://www.radardetector.net/ if Tager was willing to take the time and search for the details.

Bookm wrote:

Do the laser/radar manuals not specify an accuracy tolerance of 2+/- kph?? I'm sure I read that on another forum somewhere.

This would make an enormous difference in this example.

There is always the cosine effect on both lidar and radar which is always in favour of the defendant (clocked vehicle), it will always read lower than actual speed. This is b/c it is impossible to stand directly in front of a motor vehicle and have the unit at 3 feet off the ground to get a absolute direct hit......unless we could pop out of manhole covers.....hmmm, there's an idea

......unless we could pop out of manhole covers.....hmmm, there's an idea

You would have to change your name to gopherbear..........hahahahaha

I could see it now too

Driver: I just heard a thump and there it was, Cam Wooley's head stuck right to my licence plate. Damn thing is so big it set off the air bags.

I could go on......

No, I didn't mean the cosine effect.

There is SWEEP to consider. The light beam is invisible, so the officer can't truthfully testify he knows EXACTLY what part of the car was hit. Someone worked out the math for a typical car getting "hit" over the length of his hood:

SWEEP in the operators manuals....To force the gun to obtain a reading officers "paint" the hood of the vehicle to get a large reflection. It works. Its been mentioned on web sites, in the operators manual(s)

The math is adding or subtracting 4 feet of hood length (like in an A4 Audi) to the 88 feet per second.

60 MPH is 88 Feet per sec so what is 92 feet per sec?

-------- --------

X MPH is 92 FPS

88 X = (60 * 92)

88X = (5520)

88 X 5520

------ = --------

88 88

X = 62.727272727272

or 62.727272727 MPH

The leading edge of the roof line above the windshield is ~7 feet from the bumper/light/plate, in a diagonal a bit more.............

88 X = (60 * 95) 5700

X = 64.77272727272727

Now the beam's invisible to the eye, so where did the beam REALLY reflect from?

The certification of the LIDAR unit and the accuracy of the alignment tests are where I'd go...........BUT we just mathematically got you 4.7 MPH closer acquittal.

Bookm, I read that five times and still can't figure it out. I get it up to 62.72 MPH but couldn't figure out the 7 foot bumper to hood line calculation:

88 X = (60 * 95) 5700

The entire thread can be seen here:

http://www.radardetector.net/forums/how ... anual.html

But ever mind that... Here's something better!

I have a pdf copy of the ProLaser III Manual. It clearly indicates a speed reading tolerance of +/- 2 kph. It's quite possible this guy should not have been impounded. Of course, we don't know what the officer was using, but if a high-tech device like the ProLaser III can be off 2kph (under perfect test conditions), I'd imagine rolling radar would be even worse.

SWEEP = BS.

I have seen that *EDIT* on the english dudes video.....of course you can get something weird like he does.......100-150ft to the side of the track/road....when not being used properly.

After watching this video and deliberately trying to get "sweep" it is *beeping* impossible while using the equipment properly. I tried it for hours both daylight and night, still nothing. I have tried hitting the side, joint hood and front windshield, still no reading just error msgs.

Easily explained, the lidar requires conditions of sum of least squares to be met, if it falls outside that zone, no reading will be obtained, hence an error message....such as if you hit a vehicle at 180.2metres on the front plate, at the same time it is striking the windshield at 181.2m, the lidar will reject the reading..such as above in "no reading". The different distances will not compute. Similiar to another vehicle travelling directly beside another, the distance of the vehicle changing position will also not fall in the sum of least squares and no reading will be obtained and an error message shown.

There is also the video of the cross hairs moving on the vehicle and the speed being different......no *EDIT* sherlock. I am over 100% confident in that video that the driver did not maintain a constant foot pressure on the gas, the slope (up or down) of the road also makes a slight difference. Oops did the person forget to mention those things in the video

I believe that there is also settings, not available to the officer, to fine tune the sum of least squares data set. Basically a "noise threshold". This is probably set in the factory and could be adjusted by a tech. I think what is funny though, Bear this is for you, is that when you do your alignment check, it is done at 50 and 70 meters. All of the lidar guns in Ontario have a sight that is mounted above the transmitter lens. The alignment check you have performed validates 50 and 70 meters but definitely excludes anything over that distance. Short story long, if you use the gun over 70 meters more of the beam winds up aimed at the windsheild and roof of the car, also over it for that matter. I'll doodle up a diagram if you don't get what I mean.

I understand what you mean.

To sit back and arm chair quarterback what others say and based on this and that, without using the device is not practicable. Or some that think b/c they use it on a track from 100ft away is also not practicable.

I had to take a course, I have used it almost every shift for the past 7yrs, I stand by the equipment, it does not make errors. I have experimented with "those that think they know" perceptions errors etc, with no validity to them.

It is about time some people just looked at something they have purchased.....called a speedometer......then look along the side of the road for another thing.......the posted speed limit....and not just the speed limit, but the word under it.......which says MAXIMUM ...not minimum

I think that it still comes down to the fact that a black law is enforced in a gray, or grey, way.

Grey/gray....you are talking about speed limit enforcement. I'm guessing you mean that everyone 1km over should be getting a ticket? Some days I can not keep up as it is...starting at 20 overs on secondary hwys.

Bring back photo radar then and set the camera to the limit. It would then pick off everyone and no one would have to worry about demerit points......further, think it's a tax grab.....each driver/owner has their own choice to drive below the speed limit and avoid it altogether.

Tager's boyfriend had his car impounded because the officers speed equipment displayed 51kph over the limit. I doubt ANY manufacturers manual will claim to be more accurate than 2kph (as per the Pro Laser III manual) so it's quite possible he was doing 49kph over the limit. So, sure, he should have received a hefty fine, but not the extreme penalties associated with a "racing" charge.

So there's only two possible conclusions to be made here:

1) The officer isn't trained well enough to know the specifications of his own equipment.

2) He really doesn't give a rats ass and just wants to brag to the boys about how he nailed another one today.

Either one is unacceptable and should result in disciplinary action. He should also be compelled to provide financial restitution for the towing, impoundment, and other fees associated with his error. The police may think they can just paint everyone with a broad brush and enforce law as they see fit. There are different penalties for different speeds. They have to be applied appropriately.

Bookm wrote:

Tager's boyfriend had his car impounded because the officers speed equipment displayed 51kph over the limit. I doubt ANY manufacturers manual will claim to be more accurate than 2kph (as per the Pro Laser III manual) so it's quite possible he was doing 49kph over the limit. So, sure, he should have received a hefty fine, but not the extreme penalties associated with a "racing" charge.

.

With my handy dandy cosine calculator with about 5-10% angle (as one can not be directly in the path of the vehicle and have the lidar 3ft off the ground) the reduction via cosine is 1.2mph = 2km/hr. So even if the lidar is 2km faster, still comes out to the true speed.

It should be stressed again that with the LIDAR, the angular or cosine effect is always in the motorist's favor.

And it was NOT racing he was charged with!!

With all the alledged bad things about 172.......surely everyone knows that they should not even be so close to 50 over.

One motorist was luckier than *EDIT* the other night. Clocked at 164km/hr, just caught a glimpse of me and started braking, I was delayed on getting out behind due to a transport starting to pass. I called ahead to 2 units. Lost site due to a curve in the road. Co-worker stopped the vehicle just past the curve now at 129km/hr.

According to my handy dandy calculator, in order for you to achieve a 5 degree angle at 400 meters to target you would need to be 35 meters from the road.

Tan (angle)= opposite/adjacent.

So, we multiply both sides by 400 (just an example number) and we get 400 times Tan 5 degrees=34.99 blah,blah. I think you would be hard pressed to catch a lot of action 35 meters from the road bear. The charge should be 2 KMH less then the gun reading. I have yet to see officers using their lidars in the bushes.......... Sidewalks yes, bushes mmmmmmm no.

Yes, engineering background. You can even punch the number through your windows calculator.

Reflections wrote:

According to my handy dandy calculator, in order for you to achieve a 5 degree angle at 400 meters to target you would need to be 35 meters from the road. .

SO what your saying is stop using things I find on the internet...go to my office and get my training stuff.....copy

Common geographical features such as a crown in the road or a bend in the road could quite easily exclude the cosine factor from the equation. Of course we have no idea of the topography in this case, but I doubt the officer will remember it either, 6 months down the road

The benefit of the doubt should always favor the defendant.

hwybear wrote:

Reflections wrote:

According to my handy dandy calculator, in order for you to achieve a 5 degree angle at 400 meters to target you would need to be 35 meters from the road. .

SO what your saying is stop using things I find on the internet...go to my office and get my training stuff.....copy

Just putting everything into perspective. The angles you are refering to are seldom, if ever present in lidar speed "traps".

Bookm wrote:

Common geographical features such as a crown in the road or a bend in the road could quite easily exclude the cosine factor from the equation. Of course we have no idea of the topography in this case, but I doubt the officer will remember it either, 6 months down the road ]

A hill will not eliminate cosine. A curve will only eliminate cosine in stationary mode IF the unit is set up at identical height to the vehicle, obtains a straight head on shot, prior to the vehicle entering the curve.....so ideally is the pop up cop holes (person holes in centre of road)