Reflections wrote:

Don't forget to find parking, lets drop 20 minutes off the travel time for the 401-DVP-Queens park route and 48 minute to travel 118KM. Lets see 6 goes into 48 8 times........divide 118 by 8 and multiple by 10 and survey says 147.5 KM/H "average". Nope he never even came close to 150..........

So, realistically, Constable Donnelley's testimony was probably pretty darn close to accurate.

hwybear wrote:

The cruiser was not "run through radar" to confirm that the speedometer was in fact working properly.

Let's replace Constable Tapp with a civilian in a similar situation. OPP officer in unmarked vehicle follows speeder and does not have radar, verifies speed by following said vehicle and using speedometer only. Is the observation by following and checking the speedometer sufficient to lay a charge?

Radar Identified wrote:

Reflections wrote:

Don't forget to find parking, lets drop 20 minutes off the travel time for the 401-DVP-Queens park route and 48 minute to travel 118KM. Lets see 6 goes into 48 8 times........divide 118 by 8 and multiple by 10 and survey says 147.5 KM/H "average". Nope he never even came close to 150..........

So, realistically, Constable Donnelley's testimony was probably pretty darn close to accurate.

hwybear wrote:

The cruiser was not "run through radar" to confirm that the speedometer was in fact working properly.

Let's replace Constable Tapp with a civilian in a similar situation. OPP officer in unmarked vehicle follows speeder and does not have radar, verifies speed by following said vehicle and using speedometer only. Is the observation by following and checking the speedometer sufficient to lay a charge?

yeah, calibrated speedometer Usually stands up in court

Radar Identified wrote:

hwybear wrote:

The cruiser was not "run through radar" to confirm that the speedometer was in fact working properly.

Let's replace Constable Tapp with a civilian in a similar situation. OPP officer in unmarked vehicle follows speeder and does not have radar, verifies speed by following said vehicle and using speedometer only. Is the observation by following and checking the speedometer sufficient to lay a charge?

For all paces we (at least my court area....and the 3 surrounding ones) require that the patrol vehicle speedometer has been checked by radar or lidar comparison to obtain a conviction from a pace on a speedometer.

hwybear wrote:

Radar Identified wrote:

hwybear wrote:

The cruiser was not "run through radar" to confirm that the speedometer was in fact working properly.

Let's replace Constable Tapp with a civilian in a similar situation. OPP officer in unmarked vehicle follows speeder and does not have radar, verifies speed by following said vehicle and using speedometer only. Is the observation by following and checking the speedometer sufficient to lay a charge?

For all paces we (at least my court area....and the 3 surrounding ones) require that the patrol vehicle speedometer has been checked by radar or lidar comparison to obtain a conviction from a pace on a speedometer.

From what I understand, those CVPI speedometers are calibrated and recalibrated every so often... if the Crown can provide sufficient evidence that the speedo had been calibrated adequately, it will stand up in court.

The evidence can either be testimony from an expert witness who calibrated the unit, or a certificate or certificates of calibration that are signed.

hwybear wrote:

For all paces we (at least my court area....and the 3 surrounding ones) require that the patrol vehicle speedometer has been checked by radar or lidar comparison to obtain a conviction from a pace on a speedometer.

Highway Safety Division around here was running a couple of pace cars without radar/lidar... and issuing PON from them. I have no idea about conviction rates.

Strange that there's apparently no provincial court standard for requiring radar/lidar backup... oh wait, it isn't strange because it would make sense.

hwybear wrote:

So without any evidence to confirm the visual observation...what do we have? no evidence!

What I don't get is these trained OPP officers can't tell the difference between 180 km/h and 100km/h as they're driving? If you drive through a school zone, can you tell if you're going 40km/h or 120km/h without looking at the speedometer?

Reflections: OPP get free parking under the building. Primo spots too! No need to deduct time. Also, how much traffic is there at 4 in the morning? Seriously.

Lets say they stopped for a couple of red lights....The numbers still say they were speeding.......by a large number

Reflections wrote:

Lets say they stopped for a couple of red lights....The numbers still say they were speeding.......by a large number

NO, Remember it,s against Tapps ethics, that whole case was a waste of time and money!

Can he take legal action against the OPP or that other Constable?

ticketcombat wrote:

If you drive through a school zone, can you tell if you're going 40km/h or 120km/h without looking at the speedometer?

If you're from Toronto: No.

BelSlySTi wrote:

Can he take legal action against the OPP or that other Constable?

I think so. He's already filed four complaints with the Human Rights Commission against the OPP so I can't see why he wouldn't sue them now. Apparently frivolous charge laid (at least if you look at the trial outcome only as opposed to the math), dragged his name publicly through the mud, he's found innocent... could be grounds for a lawsuit.

hwybear wrote:

Not to mention that case does not have radar/lidar involved. The cruiser was not "run through radar" to confirm that the speedometer was in fact working properly. There was no "black box" download from the cruiser to obtain a speed either. So without any evidence to confirm the visual observation...what do we have? no evidence!

Nothing to do with "going with the flow of traffic".

I know this is an old thread, but I am curious hwybear about that statement.

That since no calibration was done on the speedometer, and there was no other speed measuring device that this would not prove to be sufficient evidence to support a charge of speeding, and that since the defendant did not know his speed at the time, that this would be accepted as evidence to the contrary? I thought when you testified that you were unaware of your speed at the time that it would make you seem unreliable in court.

What exactly does the crown need to have Prima facie to a charge of speeding either under s.172 or under s.128? And to obtain a conviction?

Sorry, I am just curious.

Sheesh, had to read the whole post to find out what the thread was about.

I don't think saying you were unaware of the speed, would make a person unreliable. When I drove to work today, I can not tell you what speed I was driving....I'll guess from 40-60km/hr in a 50 & 60 zone as I always travel in that variable. Unless stopped at the time or told, how would a specific speed trigger a spot in my mind to remember.

There are many pieces of evidence required for a speeding/stunt offence. It also is different for each method radar/lidar/pacing or aircraft.