Unethical Speeding Ticket

I was driving west bound down a residential street. The street is posted at 50KM. When I saw the cop sitting on the right, behind a large tree, I immediately looked down at my speedometer and it read 60 to 62 KM/h, I then instinctively hit my brakes and looked at the cop who was reaching over the steering wheel to put the car into gear. The cop put on the lights and, I pulled over immediately. While I waited for her to come up to my side window, I presume she was running my plate, I gathered all the appropriate documentation for her. She eventually came up to the driver side window and asked me what the rush was. No rush I said, just on my way to work. She told me that I was doing 74KM in a 50KM zone, I said thats not possible as I know that I wasnt going that fast, to which she said I had you on radar. I asked to see the radar and she said that she wasnt obligated to do so and that it has been reset. Now you walk a very fine line here between arguing your case and being a dick, (the perception of the cop). So I didnt want to be a dick and stopped my argument until court, even though I know I wasnt going 50% above the posted speed limit.

I know there was no radar involved because when I drove past her she wasnt putting down any radar gun, she was putting her car in gear. She went back to her car fr a while, then came back and said that she reduced my ticket to 15KMs over, no points and a $50 fine, she repeated this three times, which was enough to make it seem odd. She also pointed out Code: R 74 and told me that if I do decide to fight this ticket it will be fought at 74KM/h and not 65KM/h … Im starting to think she is just telling me to pay this and move on.

So based on principle alone I want to fight this ticket because I know that I wasnt speeding, 100%. I have a clean driving record for like 10 years and I am not an aggressive driver.

Whats to stop a cop near the end of the month (quota) from pulling over some poor sap, mainly me, and saying I caught you going… ahh … 74, but I will reduce the ticket so that there are no points and only a fine. The cop looks good because it looks as though she is being nice to me, and the cop looks good as she fills her quota … win win for the cops.

Should I fight or just pay and say the hell with it ??? Even though it doesnt count on my driving record it still may count on my insurance somewhere down the road, who knows right … and whos to say I dont get a major infraction within 6 months where this ticket is the one that sets me over the edge.

Most insurance companies will forgive a single minor (*) conviction in a 3 year period. For that reason, I fight each and every ticket I get.

By the way, if your story is true, I'd file an official complaint against the constable. I am just not sure whether it should be done now or after the court date. I hate that sort of lying scum. They are hurting regular folk and making it more difficult for honest constables to perform their duties by creating a lot of resentment in the community.

(*) Minor convictions are speeding below the 44-50 range (depending on the insurance company) and just about anything else other than Careless, Impaired or Stunting/Street Racing.

Frodamob wrote:

I know there was no radar involved because when I drove past her she wasnt putting down any radar gun, she was putting her car in gear.

Simply put the radar unit down on the seat beside, then reached up to put the vehicle in gear. Would not keep the unit in your hand if you have already obtained a speed, identified the vehicle and now you want to stop it.

The ticket will go on your driving record, but you won't get demerit points. The insurance company cares about the record, not the points - as FiReSTaRT indicated. One ticket for 15 over with a clean record otherwise probably won't result in an increase, depending on your provider.

If you decide to fight the ticket, make a disclosure request, specifically asking for the officer's notes and the speed measurement device (lidar or radar) that was used. I know you said that you didn't see her holding any speed measuring device - but there's a problem. The officer probably saw you WAY before you saw her (this is usually the case with speed traps). LIDAR has an effective range of over a kilometre; radar has a good range too. The fact that the moment you saw her she was reaching to put the car in gear means she'd probably taken a reading on your vehicle with radar or lidar 10 seconds or more before you saw her. Unless you had just crested a hill or rounded a bend, the officer probably took the reading, put the device down, and then reached to put it in gear - which is when you saw her. Unless you walked back to the cruiser and saw there was no device in the car at all, there's no way you can testify to the fact that the officer did not use or have one.

You could plea-bargain to a lesser speed, you could see if the cop shows up, or you could challenge it on the basis of accuracy of the device (if the officer did not test or use it properly). If the Crown doesn't give you the officer's notes and access to the radar/lidar manual, you can also file for a stay of proceedings. If she used a hand-held radar, there are also a few more defences you can use (see this discussion):

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic1092.html

Thanks All,

You're correct I do not know 100%, if radar was used, but I think it's probably wasn't used.

And, I do know for sure, 100%, that I wasn't driving 74KM or 50% over the posted limit of 50KM. I personally feel she pulled this number out of her ass, to fill some sort of quota system.

I think I will fight the ticket based on the following reasons:

1) the ticket may be processed incorrectly (slight chance)

2) the cop might not show up for the court date (never know)

3) they waste my time, I waste the systems time ( traffic cops = glorified tax collectors)

4) I will wait 10 days then file my not guilty plea, then will wait 6 months to see (when or IF) I get a court date

5) Not that I need it but it does give me more time to pay the fine. This fine is only $50 bucks.

If the ticket does go through, and I find myself in court, I can always say that I have decided to plead guilty to the 65KM over and pay the fine

I dunno just thinking is all, but with some of those reasons and many more why wouldn't we all fight every ticket we get??

Thoughts, Comments?

We all constantly pay taxes at the pumps, stores, property tax etc..... or utility charges of "delivery to you" charges etc....where we have absolutely no control over it and don't complain....

Yet we have complete control over our fate on the roads and all of a sudden when someone gets stopped it is a a tax grab. It is easy to control your own fate in this circumstance, but would not want to look in the mirror to avoid the tax grab.

hwybear wrote:

We all constantly pay taxes at the pumps, stores, property tax etc..... or utility charges of "delivery to you" charges etc....where we have absolutely no control over it and don't complain....

Yet we have complete control over our fate on the roads and all of a sudden when someone gets stopped it is a a tax grab. It is easy to control your own fate in this circumstance, but would not want to look in the mirror to avoid the tax grab.

these officers are behind bushes or poles?

At the bottom of a hill.

It is pure stealing.

Cheers

Viper1

Bear, our speed limits, laws and enforcement policies seem to be more effective at generating revenue than promoting safer roads.

In other countries, I've seen limits of up to 110km/h on roads that would automatically be limited to 80 here in Ontario. Then there's the 3am school zone speed limit enforcement. In Ontario, I routinely drive/ride 20km/h over the limit. I'd be comfortable with 30-40 over on most roads (mostly safety-wise on major arteries and to maximize fuel economy on the major highways). In more reasonable jurisdictions, I don't do more than 10 over the limit for the same reasons, same types of roads.

As for our laws.. How many people get nailed for blocking the passing lane? And if you make a couple of lane changes to pass a couple of those moving road-blocks, you're a street racer courtesy of Bill 203. Don't even get me started on our new (effective) blood alcohol level limit.

Without getting into killers getting away with $110 tickets, look at the signals that our municipal police services are giving us. We are being a menace on the roads if we go 5km/h over the limits or make an illegal light turn on red, chirp the tires by accident or blow HALF of the safe alcohol level, but driving on an unlit street at night, without turning on the headlights is perfectly safe according to the Peel boys. Then you get the TPS idiot I came across last night. He decided to camp for illegal right turners in a driving lane, on a 60km/h road, underneath an overpass, in the dark, without headlights on. Guess who would have been charged if that moron got rear-ended.

The bottom line is that our speed limits are too low, people will drive at safe speeds, so there's plenty of people to hit up with monetary fines. Start catching moving road blocks and cell phone talkers and we'll start believing that the police services' departmental policies are shifting toward promoting safety.

P.S. Cops in Chile go down the highway with their cherries on, doing the speed limit. That's the most effective method to slow people down.

FiReSTaRT wrote:

Bear, our speed limits, laws and enforcement policies seem to be more effective at generating revenue than promoting safer roads.

At the end of the day, hills, curves or whatever, still can not say the driver does not have their own fate in their control

.. How many people get nailed for blocking the passing lane?

show me the law that says one can not drive in the left lane when they are at the speed limit and overtaking another vehicle to the right

Don't even get me started on our new (effective) blood alcohol level limit.

The BAC limit has not changed in 12 yrs that I have been around

Start catching moving road blocks and cell phone talkers and we'll start believing that the police services' departmental policies are shifting toward promoting safety.

Cellphones legislation is October 2009.

P.S. Cops in Chile go down the highway with their cherries on, doing the speed limit. That's the most effective method to slow people down.

I have done that in snow storms, fog and rain....guess what some drivers still try to pass

At the end of the day, hills, curves or whatever, still can not say the driver does not have their own fate in their control

Hills and curves are the areas where the speed limits either drop or warning signs get posted (like on HWY ramps)

show me the law that says one can not drive in the left lane when they are at the speed limit and overtaking another vehicle to the right

For starters, the HTA should not allow for snail-races. There is the concept of lane discipline. If I am in the left lane and see somebody coming up to my tail, I find the first opportunity to change lanes and let that person pass before resuming my own passing.

Also, people have been known to go side by side across 2 or even 3 lanes and I've never seen somebody get pulled over for it.

The BAC limit has not changed in 12 yrs that I have been around

Yeah, but now you suffer consequences without a trial for blowing in the WARN range, hence the word effective

Cellphones legislation is October 2009.

Based on my observation of Ontario's enforcement tactics over the last decade and change, once the novelty wears off, this law will fade into obscurity. In any case, this is one of the rare cases where I believe for the legislation to be insufficient. Hands-free is almost as unsafe.

I have done that in snow storms, fog and rain....guess what some drivers still try to pass

With our speed limits being what they are, I could almost understand doing it in nice weather, but in snow storms.. Such geniuses should either be taken care of by Darwin or by getting ticketed. Even those of us with proper training/experience for driving under winter conditions should be mindful of your average Southern Ontario driver (lane changes without signalling/looking combined with much longer stopping distances).

FiReSTaRT wrote:

The BAC limit has not changed in 12 yrs that I have been around

Yeah, but now you suffer consequences without a trial for blowing in the WARN range, hence the word effective

there has always been consequences (ie licence suspension and tow) in the WARN area.

I personally would like to see a $325 ticket and 6 points for this too.

FiReSTaRT wrote:

Then there's the 3am school zone speed limit enforcement.

I was fighting a ticket, first one I ever fought, and the officer mentioned there was a school on the road. Here's the funny thing, the offence date was June 28, it was a Sunday and it was 9:00 pm. What does a school have do with it???????

some students *cough Bookm* might just be finishing detention from the week before

there has always been consequences (ie licence suspension and tow) in the WARN area.

I personally would like to see a $325 ticket and 6 points for this too.

That would be effective prohibition without any logical cause. Scientific studies have determined that 0.10 is a safe range. The limits have been set to 0.08 to include a safety margin for those who can't hold their liquor. I have zero issues with that. Then we get to the "warn" range, which is just an arbitrary figure. You are no more dangerous at 0.05 than not having had a single drink. However, now you are immediately penalized and then charged for no reason other than the mooing of the MADD cows. Their own founder left'em because they started clamoring for total prohibition instead of responsible alcohol use.

I have been through the extensive training in alcohol, trained as an Intoxilyzer technician. The whole course revolves around alcohol, the affects on the body. The course is NOT MADD generated or such groups. The course is administered/taught directly by CFS (Centre of Forensic Science) Scientists. It is probably the hardest course I have ever been on. Part of the course was to test people, to which we had to have people drink in a controlled environment, while maintaining actual counts of drinks, seeing the affects of alcohol on them and their judgements. It is a complete eye opening experience to say the least.

Responsible alcohol use is not 4 plus drinks and getting behind the wheel. Which put someone in the 50mgs plus range. The more a person drinks the more they will become a hazard on the road.

Unlike many, I have been to many collisions involving alcohol. But of course the alcohol ethusiasts (that do not like the limits) don't see the blood across the airbags, pieces of hair embedded into the windows (there is a lot more graphic desciptions I could use) etc...injuries to other innocent people just using that same road. All which was preventable by not drinking and driving.

FiReSTaRT wrote:

Hands-free is almost as unsafe.

Just a small but significant quibble, FiReSTaRT: hands-free is just as unsafe as hand-held, and is quite possibly more so.

There's a good roundup of the scientific studies on this in a New York lawyer's summary post from Feb. 09 at http://tiny.cc/8pZFY , and one of the recent studies (by psychologists at Dalhousie University) is in the Journal of Safety Research vol. 40 (2), abstract available online since 9 April ( http://tiny.cc/kKBcJ ). The study in JSB concludes: "Our review shows that talking on the phone, regardless of phone type, has negative impacts on performance especially in detecting and identifying events. Performance while using a hands-free phone was rarely found to be better than when using a handheld phone. Some studies found that drivers compensate for the deleterious effects of cell phone use when using a handheld phone but neglect to do so when using a hands-free phone."

The science is clear, repeatable, and unequivocal. Both sorts of cell phone use are dangerous, and to ban only one while continuing to allow the other would be just plain silly, particularly if it turns out that the more dangerous of the two is condoned.

Our legislators wouldn't be that stupid (or that venal), would they? Would they?

I did some reading on this topic because, believe it or not, I am seriously opposed to drunk driving. My figures weren't pulled out of my behind. They came from Alcohol and Caffeine - A Study of Their Psychological Effects By Harvey Nash which presented study results that indicated that a statistically significant impairment only came at 100mg levels.

From my personal experience.. I will feel the effect of 4 drinks but they'll be nowhere near driving on 5 hours of sleep, which is fairly common in these parts. I also test my decision making abilities and awareness of traffic around me when riding as a front seat passenger. Generally I'd be concerned about my driving only after having 7-8 drinks. With that being said, when I know I'm gonna drive, I don't have more than 2 (3 if I am spending several hours in one spot) and no more than a single drink when I ride.

the limits for warn are probably in place to encompass the majority of the population. It would be impossible to have a limit for each person.

When I was a drinking test subject on my course, I drank as much as I could in the time limit. We then had to go down a hall, elevator another hall and into the classroom. I was quite enebriated. I remember bumping the wall at least once. My result was in the "warn" range and I was not even over 80mgs yet.

A lot of factors play into it. sex of the person, weight, the body's ability to cope with alcohol, how often does a person consume? the more often the person consumes, the longer it will take to affect the body as the body has become immune to the drug (alcohol).

Bear, the way the test was run suggests that not enough alcohol got metabolized to get into your lungs to blow a more realistic reading, which would make the test highly unrealistic.

The warn limit was just a figure pulled from where the Sun don't shine. 0.08 was the limit placed to encompass the majority of the population and as I said, I fully agree with it.

Sex, age and muscle mass just affect how quickly your blood alcohol content goes up and down. While it may take 4-5 drinks to get me over 0.05, a 100lb girl may only need 2.

FiReSTaRT wrote:

Bear, the way the test was run suggests that not enough alcohol got metabolized to get into your lungs to blow a more realistic reading, which would make the test highly unrealistic..

sorry, think you misunderstood....it was just not one test....we had multiple tests over 3 hrs after we stopped consuming.

So the same thing happened again today... I went out for lunch with some coworkers and on the way to the restaurant we were pulled over. This is Renforth drive in Etobicoke and there is something like 6 schools on this road, and as such the speed limit is 40KM. My coworker who was driving his piece of *EDIT* Suzuki turned onto Renforth and was doing somewhere from 50KM to 52KM, I was watching his digital speedometer as I know this is a famous radar trap. Any ways the cop pulled us over and walked up to the side of the car and told him he was caught doing 58KM in a 50 but would lower it to 50KM in a 40KM, no points, just a fine of 40 bucks or something. Then the cop asked for his license and blah blah ... my coworker argued a little but then let it go...

This reduction on the spot means that this lowly educated traffic officer is the Judge Jury and Executor... it all depends on the mood of the cop and who the cop is. Its not across the board the same. And the cop led with the reduction, before gathering his info?

I asked him what he is going to do with the ticket and he told me just pay, it's not worth the hassel. I bet you 95% of the population would do the same thing, hence cash cow

Nothing but a cash cow tax grab!!