I was pulled over by an officer from behind (I think I drove past her). She said I was speeding but didn't tell me how fast exactly, said she reduced the ticket to 60 in 50 zone. I had a feeling that she didn't catch me on the radar so I asked for the disclosure. It says "the acc was driving a xx car xx road accelerated pace my speedo was 80 km/he in posted 50" I think she wanted to say that she was driving at 80 and I drove past her. But it's not clear on the disclosure. It didn't really say what I did or how fast I was going. Do I have a fighting chance? Btw, I don't believe I was anywhere close to 80, pass 60 yes cause I forgot it's a 50 road. :? Thank you for helping! Screen Shot 2020-06-09 at 3.08.47 AM.png Screen Shot 2020-06-09 at 3.10.23 AM.png
I was pulled over by an officer from behind (I think I drove past her). She said I was speeding but didn't tell me how fast exactly, said she reduced the ticket to 60 in 50 zone. I had a feeling that she didn't catch me on the radar so I asked for the disclosure.
It says "the acc was driving a xx car xx road accelerated pace my speedo was 80 km/he in posted 50"
I think she wanted to say that she was driving at 80 and I drove past her. But it's not clear on the disclosure. It didn't really say what I did or how fast I was going. Do I have a fighting chance?
Btw, I don't believe I was anywhere close to 80, pass 60 yes cause I forgot it's a 50 road.
Thank you for helping!
Screen Shot 2020-06-09 at 3.08.47 AM.png
Screen Shot 2020-06-09 at 3.10.23 AM.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post. Register to view.
The officer paced your vehicle; she did not use a radar or laser device to get your speed. Her notes don't give a lot of detail as to how long she actually paced your vehicle (i.e. time/distance) but she says she was going 80 in a 50. Pacing is perfectly acceptable by the courts. While it is possible that you could cross-examine her on specific details and challenge the accuracy of her speedometer, if she is good at testifying and can satisfy the court on the accuracy of her speedometer, it could backfire for you. After all, you run the likelihood that the charge will be amended back up to 80 in a 50 zone (a 4 point offence with a total price of $265) if you go to trial. Seems like quite the risk to take, but its your decision.
The officer paced your vehicle; she did not use a radar or laser device to get your speed. Her notes don't give a lot of detail as to how long she actually paced your vehicle (i.e. time/distance) but she says she was going 80 in a 50. Pacing is perfectly acceptable by the courts. While it is possible that you could cross-examine her on specific details and challenge the accuracy of her speedometer, if she is good at testifying and can satisfy the court on the accuracy of her speedometer, it could backfire for you. After all, you run the likelihood that the charge will be amended back up to 80 in a 50 zone (a 4 point offence with a total price of $265) if you go to trial. Seems like quite the risk to take, but its your decision.
Thanks a lot for your reply! If the officer didn't write things down on her notes. How could she recall the details like (time/details) on the court date months later? Unless she has great memory. Any officer could write notes like that then make up a story during trail. It doesn't make much sense to me... :(
The officer paced your vehicle; she did not use a radar or laser device to get your speed. Her notes don't give a lot of detail as to how long she actually paced your vehicle (i.e. time/distance) but she says she was going 80 in a 50. Pacing is perfectly acceptable by the courts. While it is possible that you could cross-examine her on specific details and challenge the accuracy of her speedometer, if she is good at testifying and can satisfy the court on the accuracy of her speedometer, it could backfire for you. After all, you run the likelihood that the charge will be amended back up to 80 in a 50 zone (a 4 point offence with a total price of $265) if you go to trial. Seems like quite the risk to take, but its your decision.
Thanks a lot for your reply! If the officer didn't write things down on her notes. How could she recall the details like (time/details) on the court date months later? Unless she has great memory. Any officer could write notes like that then make up a story during trail. It doesn't make much sense to me...
Does anyone have experience challenging an officer's memory? One more thing I've noticed is that that the road I was on is slightly curved so she should have paced me in the same lane. Judging from the picture, do you think this is enough of a curve to use this argument? Screen Shot 2020-06-10 at 2.07.39 AM.png I recall that I was driving in the left lane, then switched to the right lane right before she turned on her lights from behind. I think she was pacing me from the right lane. But I'm not 100% confident about it. I doubt she remembers everything either. Any thoughts?
Does anyone have experience challenging an officer's memory?
One more thing I've noticed is that that the road I was on is slightly curved so she should have paced me in the same lane. Judging from the picture, do you think this is enough of a curve to use this argument?
Screen Shot 2020-06-10 at 2.07.39 AM.png
I recall that I was driving in the left lane, then switched to the right lane right before she turned on her lights from behind. I think she was pacing me from the right lane. But I'm not 100% confident about it. I doubt she remembers everything either. Any thoughts?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post. Register to view.
You're overthinking the idea of pacing. The officer maintains an equal distance between vehicles and looks down at the speedometer. Keep in mind speeding is what they call an absolute liability offense. That means during a trial they will only consider whether you were doing the speed limit or not. At the minimum, you've already admitted to doing 60km+, which would be enough for a conviction on its own.
You're overthinking the idea of pacing.
The officer maintains an equal distance between vehicles and looks down at the speedometer.
Keep in mind speeding is what they call an absolute liability offense. That means during a trial they will only consider whether you were doing the speed limit or not.
At the minimum, you've already admitted to doing 60km+, which would be enough for a conviction on its own.
Well, from the disclosure, the officer did not state that she maintained an equal distance for a period of time when she recorded the speed. She could have been recording the speed while trying to catch up with me. We do not have that information. Therefore I want to challenge if she can recall such details without writing it down on her note months after the incident. I'm definitely not admitting doing any speeding on court unless this post can be used against me :P
The officer maintains an equal distance between vehicles and looks down at the speedometer.
Keep in mind speeding is what they call an absolute liability offense. That means during a trial they will only consider whether you were doing the speed limit or not.
At the minimum, you've already admitted to doing 60km+, which would be enough for a conviction on its own.
Well, from the disclosure, the officer did not state that she maintained an equal distance for a period of time when she recorded the speed. She could have been recording the speed while trying to catch up with me. We do not have that information. Therefore I want to challenge if she can recall such details without writing it down on her note months after the incident.
I'm definitely not admitting doing any speeding on court unless this post can be used against me
I think you'll be in for quite the lesson if you go to trial. Remember, the officer does not have to write down everything in her notes; the notes aren't evidence; they are only used to refresh her memory. She just has to have an independent recollection of events and can't simply read off her notes. In your case, the officer will likely say she recalls seeing you approaching her from behind in either her lane or in an adjacent lane and then recalls you passing her at a speed that was well above 50km in the adjacent lane. She'll state that she herself was going 80km because she looked at her speedometer. She'll then provide your ID from your driver's license, vehicle description and describe whether it was sunny, the visibility, the road conditions and the speed limit on that stretch of road. That's all that is needed! After all, if you pass a car that is going 80km, the laws of physics say you can't be going 50km per hour! Its an absolute liability offence so that proves the case of speeding at least for 80km. Either way, good luck on your case. Let us know how it turns out for you!
I think you'll be in for quite the lesson if you go to trial. Remember, the officer does not have to write down everything in her notes; the notes aren't evidence; they are only used to refresh her memory. She just has to have an independent recollection of events and can't simply read off her notes. In your case, the officer will likely say she recalls seeing you approaching her from behind in either her lane or in an adjacent lane and then recalls you passing her at a speed that was well above 50km in the adjacent lane. She'll state that she herself was going 80km because she looked at her speedometer. She'll then provide your ID from your driver's license, vehicle description and describe whether it was sunny, the visibility, the road conditions and the speed limit on that stretch of road. That's all that is needed! After all, if you pass a car that is going 80km, the laws of physics say you can't be going 50km per hour! Its an absolute liability offence so that proves the case of speeding at least for 80km. Either way, good luck on your case. Let us know how it turns out for you!
What you describe is pacing? From what I've found online, pacing is following a vehicle at a steady distance for a period of time. Doesn't she need to describe exactly how she did it to proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Why shouldn't I question her pacing technique? Especially on a curvy road. She could have been reading the speedo while she's trying to catch up with me from far away. She could have been recalling a memory from another incidence. Hypothetically speaking, she could have make something up on the spot. She could have put down the 80 to deter me from going to court.
I think you'll be in for quite the lesson if you go to trial. Remember, the officer does not have to write down everything in her notes; the notes aren't evidence; they are only used to refresh her memory. She just has to have an independent recollection of events and can't simply read off her notes. In your case, the officer will likely say she recalls seeing you approaching her from behind in either her lane or in an adjacent lane and then recalls you passing her at a speed that was well above 50km in the adjacent lane. She'll state that she herself was going 80km because she looked at her speedometer. She'll then provide your ID from your driver's license, vehicle description and describe whether it was sunny, the visibility, the road conditions and the speed limit on that stretch of road. That's all that is needed! After all, if you pass a car that is going 80km, the laws of physics say you can't be going 50km per hour! Its an absolute liability offence so that proves the case of speeding at least for 80km. Either way, good luck on your case. Let us know how it turns out for you!
What you describe is pacing? From what I've found online, pacing is following a vehicle at a steady distance for a period of time. Doesn't she need to describe exactly how she did it to proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Why shouldn't I question her pacing technique? Especially on a curvy road. She could have been reading the speedo while she's trying to catch up with me from far away. She could have been recalling a memory from another incidence. Hypothetically speaking, she could have make something up on the spot. She could have put down the 80 to deter me from going to court.
There's nothing preventing you from challenging the officer's testimony and going to trial. Its always beneficial for people like you to take matters to court when the odds are significantly against them. That's how the law gets better clarified. Since its your money, time and driving record on the line and only a few extra hundred dollars of YOUR money, don't let anyone dissuade you if you want your day in court. Just know that the officer will have very little difficulty establishing time/distance since she can easily say she saw your vehicle approach from behind, pass her car and still be above the speed limit as you passed her. Assuming she says she saw your vehicle from 4 car lengths back and got behind you when your car was 4 car lengths ahead, that's a total of 9 car lengths (counting the length of her car that you passed). The average car length is about 15 feet; so that yields 135 feet which equals about 41 meters. Keep in mind that the officer's vehicle is moving at 80km/h which is 22.2 meters per second. Make sure you understand the concept of relative velocity. Pacing can be done by several methods---yet, you seem to be fixated on the more common version of the officer following the vehicle for some period at a constant distance as your basis for dispute. That's not an essential element to pacing. Remember, in your case, the court will have to grapple with how it was possible for your vehicle which was going 50km/h to be able to pass the officer's vehicle that was going 80km. :D
There's nothing preventing you from challenging the officer's testimony and going to trial. Its always beneficial for people like you to take matters to court when the odds are significantly against them. That's how the law gets better clarified. Since its your money, time and driving record on the line and only a few extra hundred dollars of YOUR money, don't let anyone dissuade you if you want your day in court.
Just know that the officer will have very little difficulty establishing time/distance since she can easily say she saw your vehicle approach from behind, pass her car and still be above the speed limit as you passed her. Assuming she says she saw your vehicle from 4 car lengths back and got behind you when your car was 4 car lengths ahead, that's a total of 9 car lengths (counting the length of her car that you passed). The average car length is about 15 feet; so that yields 135 feet which equals about 41 meters. Keep in mind that the officer's vehicle is moving at 80km/h which is 22.2 meters per second. Make sure you understand the concept of relative velocity.
Pacing can be done by several methods---yet, you seem to be fixated on the more common version of the officer following the vehicle for some period at a constant distance as your basis for dispute. That's not an essential element to pacing.
Remember, in your case, the court will have to grapple with how it was possible for your vehicle which was going 50km/h to be able to pass the officer's vehicle that was going 80km.
Well, I appreciate you taking the time to reply me. I'm just like a lot of people on this forum, exploring options, learning about laws before making a decision. I feel some unfriendly vibe here keep saying oh if you go to court, you will learn your lesson. Doesn't that sound familiar to you??? How could the police describe the 4 car plus 4 car story if she could not remember anything else? That's my argument. How could she recall any detail from more than half a year ago. How could she claim she has independent recollection of that incident? How can we know her story didn't get mixed up. I don't know how to do it, so I'm seeking advice here. No matter how perfectly your story telling skill is, how can you proof it was what happened on that day? Yes I understand the concept of relative velocity. So I understand she could have made an mistake pacing me from the outer lane on a curvy road. pacing-on-a-curve.png Lastly, I belive it's not my job to convince the court I did not speed. I just need to raise a reasonable doubt to her testimony, isn't that right?
There's nothing preventing you from challenging the officer's testimony and going to trial. Its always beneficial for people like you to take matters to court when the odds are significantly against them. That's how the law gets better clarified. Since its your money, time and driving record on the line and only a few extra hundred dollars of YOUR money, don't let anyone dissuade you if you want your day in court.
Just know that the officer will have very little difficulty establishing time/distance since she can easily say she saw your vehicle approach from behind, pass her car and still be above the speed limit as you passed her. Assuming she says she saw your vehicle from 4 car lengths back and got behind you when your car was 4 car lengths ahead, that's a total of 9 car lengths (counting the length of her car that you passed). The average car length is about 15 feet; so that yields 135 feet which equals about 41 meters. Keep in mind that the officer's vehicle is moving at 80km/h which is 22.2 meters per second. Make sure you understand the concept of relative velocity.
Pacing can be done by several methods---yet, you seem to be fixated on the more common version of the officer following the vehicle for some period at a constant distance as your basis for dispute. That's not an essential element to pacing.
Remember, in your case, the court will have to grapple with how it was possible for your vehicle which was going 50km/h to be able to pass the officer's vehicle that was going 80km.
Well, I appreciate you taking the time to reply me. I'm just like a lot of people on this forum, exploring options, learning about laws before making a decision. I feel some unfriendly vibe here keep saying oh if you go to court, you will learn your lesson. Doesn't that sound familiar to you???
How could the police describe the 4 car plus 4 car story if she could not remember anything else? That's my argument. How could she recall any detail from more than half a year ago. How could she claim she has independent recollection of that incident? How can we know her story didn't get mixed up. I don't know how to do it, so I'm seeking advice here. No matter how perfectly your story telling skill is, how can you proof it was what happened on that day?
Yes I understand the concept of relative velocity. So I understand she could have made an mistake pacing me from the outer lane on a curvy road.
pacing-on-a-curve.png
Lastly, I belive it's not my job to convince the court I did not speed. I just need to raise a reasonable doubt to her testimony, isn't that right?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post. Register to view.
Am really confused about this one, this morning i got a reduced speeding ticket (80km speed in 60 zone), and in the ticket the cop wrote 10km over the speeding limit.. and it has the 'R' code in it.. and the cop said i need to pay this and it doesn't have any points on it..
im fine with paying the ticket which is only 40 dollars but my biggest concern, will it show in my record ? or only tickets…
I got a ticket for driving with handheld device in Oct 2015 and I had requested for a trial. Yesterday I received the notice of trial (notice is dated 26-Jan-2017, court of trial is Newmarket, ON) and trial date is Mar 8, 2017. Today, I have sent in a registered request for disclosure (i.e on 29-Jan-2017).
Need some help here for the 1st time speeding ticket?
Sunday morning 12:10am when I was going home from work I was doing bit speeding on Gardiner. I was going with about 130km/h. I know its fast. I always take the same way and I know where the cops hide. They always hide entrance of the highways. If I will do speeding I always look my back and did look this time too. I took gardiner…
I just have a question in regards to the summons Under Part 1 I received for an rear end accident:
I was driving on the 2 lane road, and the car in front of me suddenly stopped, I had seen the car, and so I started to brake, however I heard noise from the back and looked int o the rear view mirror and saw a huge "truck" so I decided to go right, took the feet out of brakes but couldnt…
I have searched and I know the general rule is no, barring criminal charges or tresspassing. So let me use 2 specific issues I have.
1) I have some business in some area malls after hours. Once I have pulled into the mall lot on the way to the closest door I rarely stop at stop signs unless there is a car or person nearby. (i do not carelessly speed, i do show caution, just do not fully stop) Can…
In June at 401 London and Wellington I got hit twice, speeding which I didn't realize I was doing and cell phone. The Officer made me open my purse and show him my phone. I was going to meet a Rep of my Company in Kitchener, he called I answered. WRONG! The Officer wasn't even nice. My record was clean and he slapped me twice. I sat in the car and sobbed for 20 minutes as I was scared out of…
I wanted to "reply" elsewhere...but the more appropriate areas were "locked" to replies....so, here are a couple of questions...from a newbie to this site:
1. Who ARE you? (I'm a little edgy about conversing on a forum whose ownership is not stated anywhere on an "About" page") No offense intended whatsoever. Just like to know who I'm talking with/in front of.......your honor!
You are coming off of a highway exit and there are 3 lanes: right hand lane for right hand turn; middle lane for left AND right turn (but no straight thru since it is only a three-way intersection); and left lane for left hand turn. You are first in the middle lane, signalling to make a right.
CAN YOU make a right hand turn from the middle lane on a red if the traffic is clear?
Hey everyone first off I'd like to say great website, I have been reading and it is very useful
I'm posting today as I'd like to get some feedback on my situation and have a couple of questions. Please excuse the vagueness in some areas - I don't want my case to be identifiable given the small town.
So I was driving up north and was pulled over by an OPP SUV for doing 31 over. Cop drove past me,…
Hello! I'm under 16 currently and really want to drive. I know that section 37(1) says you have to be 16, but I've read that the HTA does not apply when you are in private property, so does that mean I can drive in a parking lot if I wanted to?
I was heading northbound on my bike downtown on friday. After the east/westbound lights went red and after a long pause I decided to get a head start and proceed before the light changed to green. About a block north of me an officer stepped out of an unmarked cruiser and pulled me over and gave me a $180 ticket. Now I see on this site that I should have been given points for it..but…
Got a ticket Saturday for insecure load. The officer was a real jerk and unfair. I had nothing hanging out the sides and the load wasn't that high. Just taking some junk to the dump. I was doing 40 on Ashley St in Foxboro, 4 ways on taking my time and nothing was going to fall out. I'm thinking about fighting it. Anyone experienced this before?
So I got convicted of a dui.. I have been riding my bike in the snow and taking the bus. I am a driving enthusiast and I will be going to the race track all summer but I NEED to drive something right now!
I have done lots of research and even an electric assisted bike that a 16 year old can drive legally on the road is not an option to someone with a dui suspension.
Hey this is my first ticket so as much information that people can provide will be appreciated. I was making the drive home going around 90kph(in a 80) behind what I knew was an undercover police car. The cop abruptly pulled to the side and pulled back in behind me to pull me over. Now I reduced my speed to below 80 when the cop pulled to the side but he claimed he had me clocked at 109kph and…
So I was heading home to today and I was in the left lane of the off ramp, some lady cut across her lane of traffic and across the off ramp median and hit the back side of my car! After a few meters of bumping (I was dazed and confused) I stopped the car.
I call 911 and was told to move the car to the shoulder.
Cop comes, interviews both of us, and lets the lady go! The cop proceeds to give…
An undercover cop, well not sure if he was even a cop to be honest, maybe a constable pulled me over after I passed him shortly after a construction zone. He asked me if I was in a rush and said that he was going 105 and I was going 120. It seems mostly from our conversation that he was pissed off that I passed him, because he never told me that I was speeding. None the less the ticket says…
I got this ticket last year in toronto and received court date recently.
Basically I parket on a street where there are marked spots for car parking but they were all faded with only the white edges showing. I assumed I was in the correct spot when I got out. I never noticed the fire hydrant in the bushes.
When I returned I saw the ticket and then noticed the fire hydrant and when I to the…
I would like to know if anybody could tell me what "V" stands for on the Code section of the Form 4. I think that it will be useful to understand what information is on this form in order to make a decision on what option we should chose.
I recently received a ticket for red light fail to stop under section 144 (18) of the Highway Traffic Act at the intersection of Dupont St. and Dufferin St. in Toronto with a set fine of $150 and total payable of $190. I think I entered the intersection on a yellow, however that is not the way the officer saw it. During the traffic stop the officer was polite bordering on friendly…
Got my first ticket last Thursday and I have a couple of questions. I was driving westbound on Moore St. (west of Bayview) and made a left onto a residential street at a 4-way stop sign. It was my first time driving through that area - was driving my girlfriend to a wisdom tooth surgery.
The police were set up to catch people, as that intersection had a no left turn sign from 7-9 am (buses…
Vague Disclosure (attached) 60 in a posted 50 zone, reduced from 80
