Radar Manual- No tuning forks and No tracking history

Moderators: Reflections, admin, hwybear, Radar Identified, Decatur, bend





Speedtaxed
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:41 pm

by: Speedtaxed on
Sat Aug 27, 2016 8:00 pm

Get the guy in charge of purchasing radar guns for the OPP to the stand.

1) What is the OPP's philosophy with regards to buying radar guns with tuning fork requirements?
2) Does the OPP put pressure on radar gun vendors to drop the tuning fork test?
3) What discussions have the OPP had with regards to tuning fork requirements and why they don't want to have them included in user manuals?
4) Would the OPP ever buy a radar gun from a manufacturer if it had a tuning fork requirement in its user manual?
5) What scientific evidence does the OPP have to show that tuning forks aren't necessary to externally validate the accuracy of radar guns?
6) Who are the experts that were consulted regarding the necessity of tuning fork tests that weren't vendors who had a vested interest in selling radar guns to the OPP?
7) Do you know the failure rate of the radar guns you are buying?
8) If no, why are you not testing the failure rates of the guns you are buying within the OPP?


jsherk
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 1722
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:18 pm

by: jsherk on
Sat Aug 27, 2016 8:37 pm

If you look at THE LAW ON SPEEDING AND SPEED DETECTION DEVICES 3rd Edition (formerly known in previous editions as THE LAW ON SPEEDING AND RADAR) by A. Shakoor Manraj and Paul D. Haines in Chapter 10 under IMPROPER CALIBRATION, it lays out really nice. (see attached excerpts)

Their comment is that internal test only is NOT sufficient. You also need an external test, that being either tuning forks OR against a vehicle of known speed.

So the problem we have with Decatur handheld radar devices is that they only require the internal test to be done... no tuning forks and no external vehicle... this should be a problem but we have no experts on an appeal yet that have shown this to be necessary.

The problem we have with Decaur vehicle-mounted radar devices is that they require the internal test and an external vehicle speed test, but the courts seem to accept that the vehicles speedometer used for the speed test (usually the patrol car) does NOT need to proven to be accurate. So how can you say the radar is accurate when it was tested against a speedometer that is not proven to be accurate? Just because the radar speed matches the speedometer speed does not mean either are accurate unless one of them has already been proven thru some other method that it is accurate.

Anyways lots of problems with all this, and even if one of us could afford an expert witness which might allow us to win our one speeding charge, you would still need to bring an expert witness in for each and every speeding charge until somebody gets their case up to the appeal level and wins there.

Hypothetical question I do not know the answer to... If you win your trial and get the charge dropped, can you still appeal it in order to get a Judge at appeal level to recognize the expert witness testimony?

Anyways the point I am trying to make is that I am okay with them not using tuning forks IF they test it against a vehicle with an accurate/calibrated speedometer.

Excerpt from book:
1.jpg
1
1.jpg (243 KiB) Viewed 439 times
2.jpg
2
2.jpg (241.58 KiB) Viewed 439 times
+++ This is not legal advice, only my opinion +++






rank
Member
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:54 pm

by: rank on
Wed Aug 31, 2016 12:00 am

If i recall correctly, the Decatur genesis 2 manual states that if there is a difference between the radar speed displayed and the speedometer speed displayed during the test, then the radar should be considered accurate. The radar instructor explained to me that this is because the radar uses Vehicle Interface protocol". He went on to say that VIP means the radar is tied to the cars ECM therefore it doesn't matter what the speedo says. I had several questions that I planned to ask the instructor about this thought process when I put him on the stand but unfortunately the crown dropped the charge. If one spends a little time thinking about this, it begs some questions.


rank
Member
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:54 pm

by: rank on
Wed Aug 31, 2016 12:09 am

jsherk wrote:... How does the average person who can not afford a Supreme Court challenge stand up for everybody else and these court rulings recognized?
Haha you can't and that's what they want. The crown would have to screw up royally to allow a trial to proceed in front of a JP if he/she gets the feeling you're on to something. I hope the JP finds me guilty just so we can go to appeal.


jsherk
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 1722
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:18 pm

by: jsherk on
Wed Aug 31, 2016 7:28 pm

rank wrote:I hope the JP finds me guilty just so we can go to appeal.
Yes exactly... sometimes you want them to mess up so you can take it to appeal to get a point made at that level of court. However if prosecutor is smart and sees what you are doing and thinks there is a chance you might win on appeal, then they will not fight the appeal and just allow you to win it so that none of those issues get brought up, and then you still do not have the appeal level ruling you were trying to get!
+++ This is not legal advice, only my opinion +++


jsherk
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 1722
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:18 pm

by: jsherk on
Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:22 pm

rank wrote:The radar instructor explained to me that this is because the radar uses Vehicle Interface protocol". He went on to say that VIP means the radar is tied to the cars ECM therefore it doesn't matter what the speedo says.
Wow, this is important... I had always assumed that the patrol speed displayed on the radar unit was calculated using the radar itslef.

If the patrol speed on the radar unit is tied to the ECM then of course it will always be almost exactly the same as the speedometer... they are both getting the same number from the cars computer!

This to me is even more of an issue because you still have no way of knowing if the ECM computer reading is accurate or not. So it goes back again to getting calibration/accuracy records of the speedometer (or ECM computer as the case may be).

Again you can not say the radar is accurate because it matches the speedometer/ECM and the speedometer/ECM is accurate because it matched the radar... you need an independent test of one of them to prove it is accurate before you can claim the other is also accurate.
+++ This is not legal advice, only my opinion +++


jsherk
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 1722
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:18 pm

by: jsherk on
Thu Sep 22, 2016 10:01 am

argyll wrote:No you can't appeal if you win. That's ridiculous.
jsherk wrote:It seems ridiculous, but should be allowed... How does the average person who can not afford a Supreme Court challenge stand up for everybody else and these court rulings recognized?
So after reading R v Jackson 2015 ONCA 832 (paragraph 45 to 59) I think that you could actually file an appeal even when you win. You would be asking the court to review based on the doctrine of mootness. Something for me to try down the road I guess.
+++ This is not legal advice, only my opinion +++


screeech
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 324
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 10:20 am

by: screeech on
Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:58 pm

There is no way any speeding charge will make it up to the Supreme Court...The Supreme Court gets to pick and choose what cases it will hear, a speeding charge would be so for down the list it likely would never get heard at that level. There would have to be something so big within that speeding charge that the outcome would have an effect on the whole country...and by big, I don't mean the use of tuning forks, it would have to be a huge charter of rights issue, something that could not be heard / solved at the Ontario Court of Appeal level...I just do not see it happening, ever...








Post Reply
  • Similar Topics

Return to “General Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests