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.
Hi everyone. I'm asking for a friend who has a question of interpretation.
He was ticketed for using a hand-held device. He contends that he was acting within the exemption provided under Subsection 14 (1) of O. Reg. 366/09, which reads as follows (emphasis added):
Hey guys i just wanted to know what speeds you see others do on the roads on a regular basis. As we all know no body drives 100 km. It seems they only hit that speed twice once on the way up and once on the way down.
it seems the De Facto limit on the 401 is about 120-130. But lately i dont know if…
On June 10, 2017, I was pulled over by an OPP on the 403 heading WB and told I registered 136km/hr. I kept chit chat to a minimum and took my ticket and went on with my day. I later requested my disclosure and did not receive it until a week before my Oct. 27 court date, and so I had my date…
Anyone know any more information? Apparently kathleen wynne mentioned trying to introduce legislation after more than 20 years of no speed cameras. My guess is that it wont happen, since they've tried before many times to bring it back after it was abolished.
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 posted this in the 3 Demerit Section and haven't received any
responses.
I received a failure to stop at an amber light ticket on April 17, 2009. At my First Attendance Meeting I asked to read the police officer's notes and remember thinking how ridiculous they were and the difficulty…
I was on the right side of the road going straight when a pedestrian waved down the taxi driver in the lane next to me. He pulled over to the right without any notice or signalling and hit me with the side of his car.
There were many witnesses but I immediately had a concussion and did not think of…
My mother was driving EB on a 4 lane street (2 lanes EB, 2 lanes WB).
She was in the left hand lane and started a left hand turn so as to enter a side street, crossing WB traffic. There was NO intersection. She hit a cyclist who was heading WB. Police where called but none showed up. My…
If the speed limit is 50, and you do 100+, not only do you get 6 points. Your car gets impounded for a week, and your license suspended for 7 days, along with a hefty fine of at least $2000. The penalty is actually the same as for racing. The law came in effect on October 1, 2007. Remember -…
I was driving westbound on Hwy. 8 earlier this month in North Dumfries Township, approaching the Cambridge city limits. The weather was clear and the roads were dry. I noticed a vehicle on the shoulder on my side of the road, pointing towards me. This didn't concern me right away, as it is a rural…
Vague Disclosure (attached) 60 in a posted 50 zone, reduced from 80
