The other day I was given a ticket for speeding 119 in a 90, on highway 17 near Marathon, ON (Speeding ticket capital of the universe, BTW). The officer claims to have "clocked" me using the vehicle mounted radar at 121 KMH and dropped it (presumably to lower fine and demerits). I was not going that fast, but there was a larger, and faster moving, vehicle behind me, gaining fast (I was driving a tiny vintage sportscar, the following vehicle was a 4x4 pickup). I drive 30-40,000km a year on this highway and know what I can get away with, I was going 103-105, and had he actually locked on me the most he would have gotten would have been 101-103 due to cosine error from a hill and curve. Just below the "real" limit of somewhere around 105 (in this particular area their tolerance is very low, it can be less than that, and rightly so, it's also one of the best places to hit a moose....). I verify my speed with a GPS speed readout at all times and would like to maintain my clean record for insurance purposes. Also, being wrongly accused just bugs the hell out of me. I am 100% certain the radar locked on the larger, faster, vehicle behind me, and the officer automatically attributed the reading to me, but obviously failed to visually confirm my speed. He failed to consider the possibility that the nearest target was not necessarily the strongest target. My question - how much does a visual confirmation of a vehicles speed factor into the burden of proof? Is it required by law that there is a visual confirmation of the speed? Before, or after, the "lock"? Since I was not going 121, there's no way I could look like I was going 121. At no time during the stop did the officer mention that I "looked" to be going that fast. When I objected to his reading he said he wasn't going to argue with me. He also said later if I wanted to come to court to talk about it I could. I am thinking of taking him up on his offer, casting doubt on the accuracy of his choice of target, not the accuracy of the radar itself (which in my opinion is a waste of time). I understand the court process well enough to know that this would hinge entirely on my cross examination, looking for advice on the possibility of a positive outcome? Thanks in advance!