Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.

Ontario Highway Traffic Act

Discuss the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.


Post Your Traffic Ticket, and Get Help!


The Ontario Traffic Ticket Forum!


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Check It Out
No unread posts New Set Fines Starting Sept 1st, 2015! Read and Learn Here.
  Print view

self-testing devices
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 3:58 pm 
Offline
Sr. Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:59 pm
Posts: 486
Location: Toronto
I have a lot of issues with the idea that speed measuring devices like radar and lidar guns are using computer generated simulations to test themselves that they are working properly. The manufacturer is making a claim that a device can test itself. Where's the proof that it works?

Is it in the manual or is it simply an unsubstantiated claim? Do police purchasing departments make comparison tests on radar/lidar guns before they buy them in bulk? Do they independently test the device to make sure the simulation actually works?

At trial, the cop testifies he pressed the self-test button because he was instructed to. Tuning forks provided independent verification that the device was working properly. Without them you have to rely on the device telling you it's working properly without independent scrutiny or evaluation.

If a cop pulled over a driver and asked for his license could he say, "Oh don't worry, I tested myself and I'm qualified to drive!"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:21 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Posts: 2933
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!
Where do you want to stop with this one.......

- gas station pumps, I never ever see one drop of gas that alledgedly goes in

- weigh scales at grocery stores checkouts, they seem to hide the old fashioned scales away in the stores I have seen so I can confirm weights

- property survey, another instrument used, nothing on my survey says the device was working properly

- warning lights in cars.....are they put in to fictiously come on to gain more service?

- cellphone minutes.....how can I tell I drove one block too far and now have to pay long distance charges when someone calls me

- BIG ONE - DRAFT BEER - how do I know I got a 20 ounce beer? Maybe it is 19 or later in the night 17, there are no "fill lines" on my mug! We all know they use "thick" glassed mugs to make the drink "look" bigger. What the hell is an ounce anyway? Then some come in pints....(just looking up) English pint is 20ounces, but US pint is 16 ounces....WTF?

- gas, water and hydro meters....they are not tested either....just keep spinning! See the numbers moving, when were they even calibrated? or tested for that matter? At least radar is done by someone twice a shift and every 15minutes there after by the unit.

- vehicle speedometers.....where is the daily test for that? No car on the market fires up and checks the speedometer. No certification for them. Why are police vehicles the only ones that have "speedometer certified" written right on the speedometer? are the rest not certified in a "conspiracy" by automakers to generate income for governments to bail them out later from fines produced?

_________________
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:20 pm 
Offline
Sr. Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:59 pm
Posts: 486
Location: Toronto
Bear you've given some great examples (but not for the reasons you might think).

Most of the devices you have mentioned (OK maybe not poured beer) are subject to independent testing, scrutiny and regulation. For example, gas station pumps are inspected by Measurment Canada.

I've had my hydro meter inspected. They take it down, the homeowner is welcome to watch the independent test; if there is a discrepancy, you get a refund.

And anyone who has owned a VW knows that the warning lights are a joke.

The point I'm making is that in these examples, there's an outlet to independently test the device to make sure it was working properly. Why should radar/lidar guns be exempt from this scrutiny in court?

_________________
Fight Your Ticket!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:46 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
Posts: 2881
Location: Toronto
I think it's a valid question!

I'd be interested to know how the computer simulates the speed without something moving in front of the radar antenna. I think it's an internal test only without verifying the antenna operation/integrity.

Every radar I've used, including weather radar equipment and radar altimeters, etc., had a test mode. The manufacturer told us to test it before use but this was only an internal check that verified the processor, computers, etc., were working properly. It checked the circuits and system integrity. It never physically put something in front of the radar. The antenna wasn't turned on by the test. To make absolutely sure the entire unit was functioning properly including the antenna, we had to point the radar at something (rainshower, building, whatever) and verify that it worked with the radar on, called a confidence check. On two separate occasions, after a satisfactory test, the radar showed something completely whacked-out when it was turned on... so we returned to the gate. Infrequent, but it happens.

The training I've received always harped on the fact that internal radar tests never checked the antenna operation, no matter how sophisticated the device was, hence the need for a confidence check. I'll send an e-mail to a manufacturer asking them what the internal test does on their devices since I've never used a police-type radar specifically... probably won't get an answer but we'll find out. I'm curious as to what their response is...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 2:52 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Posts: 2933
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!
I'm sure you would have to get an actual person from the company to verify the internal stuff and how it works then.

There is one judgement somewhere about this...don't think it was in Canada....last spring or something. The person from Decatur did testify in the court.

_________________
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:32 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
Posts: 2881
Location: Toronto
If it were going to court, absolutely! I'm kinda curious if a defendant can establish that the internal test is not sufficient. Probably would depend on the court's willingness to hear the evidence or consider it credible. I don't expect a reply from Decatur.

Some cases from the US... doesn't really apply directly to Ontario but they set precedent there...

Minnesota v. Gerdes (1971) and Wisconsin v. Hanson (1978) both ruled that tuning fork tests were sufficient to verify the radar was working properly. Gerdes also held that the internal test was not sufficient on its own. Long time ago, though, and technology changes. The Colorado Supreme Court stated that the tuning fork test was sufficient and that there was no need to verify the calibration of the fork itself. One TV station in Florida raised considerable questions after they clocked a palm tree doing 86 miles an hour. :shock: They showed that an improperly used radar can yield wild results.

Couldn't find the Decatur case except the one with the radar versus GPS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 9:41 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Posts: 2933
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!
I may be wrong, but to what I have heard is that tuning forks in themselves are made by using radar.....they keep shaving the metal to the tune of speed "X" on radar.

Even if the above is not the case, the tuning fork potentially could get dings, knicks or even bent over time, thus giving a wrong "tune" to the radar, unit is sent for repair but in reality the fork is wrong and radar correct.

_________________
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:38 am 
Offline
Sr. Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:59 pm
Posts: 486
Location: Toronto
Radar Identified wrote:
I'm kinda curious if a defendant can establish that the internal test is not sufficient. Probably would depend on the court's willingness to hear the evidence or consider it credible.

Some cases from the US... ruled that tuning fork tests were sufficient to verify the radar was working properly. Gerdes also held that the internal test was not sufficient on its own. Long time ago, though, and technology changes.

When the radar gun was first invented it took awhile before it received judicial notice that it could in fact determine speed. Now it's accepted as fact.

The issue then became whether the gun was working properly. It generally became accepted that an independent tuning fork test would remove doubt about that. And to be safe, the fork's calibration was certified on a regular basis as a second level of proof.

Now the manufacturer is attempting to remove these standards with the self-test button. But there isn't any proof that the button works. I think it would be up to the Crown to remove reasonable doubt and prove the test works instead of the defendant having to prove the test doesn't work.

_________________
Fight Your Ticket!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:21 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
Posts: 2881
Location: Toronto
ticketcombat wrote:
Now the manufacturer is attempting to remove these standards with the self-test button. But there isn't any proof that the button works. I think it would be up to the Crown to remove reasonable doubt and prove the test works instead of the defendant having to prove the test doesn't work.


Could this be established as de-facto reverse onus?

hwybear wrote:
I may be wrong, but to what I have heard is that tuning forks in themselves are made by using radar.....they keep shaving the metal to the tune of speed "X" on radar.


Could be... Would think it would make sense, otherwise how would they be able to test the tuning fork before saying "yes it will show speed X."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 11:34 am 
Offline
Jr. Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 10:55 am
Posts: 68
Location: Toronto, Ontario
I have a court case coming up on June10 where I will be defending myself in a speeding case. My first appearance was May25, but was adjourned due to lack of disclosure (radar manual).

I have since received disclosure and have recieved a copy of the radar manual for Decatur Genesis VP Directional. In terms of testing, the manual only mentions a "self test" which does a display test, circuitry test, and speed simulation test. The result is a simple pass or fail. There is no mention of testing with tuning forks.

As you mention above, how do we know this "simulation test" is valid??

This is what the manual says about the simulation test:
"The Genesis VPD verifies speed accuracy using synthesized doppler frequencies corrsponding to a series of four simulated speeds: 25, 50, 75 and 100 when in KM/H mode."

How are we certain this simulation of synthesized doppler frequencies is valid. What if there is a malfunction or error in the simulation? Then the radar would not be accurate. Is not an external test required to prove the unit was functioning properly??

How would I go about challenging this in court? Isn't there case law that requires testing with a tuning fork ?

In D'Astous v. Baie-Comeau (Ville) 1992 CanLII 2956 (QC C.A.), (1992), 74 C.C.C. (3d) 73, the Quebec Court of Appeal again addressed the issue of the evidentiary base necessary for a conviction for speeding based on a radar reading. In that case the court held that judicial notice could be taken of the fact that radar is used to measure the speed of automobiles and that the principle upon which it is based can be found in any encyclopedia. However, in each case, the Crown must still prove that the particular radar device used was operated accurately at the time. To do that the Crown must show:
• The operator was qualified: he followed a course, he passed an exam, he has several months' experience;
• The device was tested before and after the operation;
• The device was accurate as verified by a test and that the tuning fork used was accurate.
Once evidence is led to demonstrate those facts, then the radar reading becomes prima facie evidence of the speed of the vehicle, subject to evidence to the contrary, if any.

The case of R. v. Tummillo, 1998 CanLII 6163 may also be relevent here. This was an appeal and the judge overturned the decision based on a bullshit test of the radar. (http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight. ... i6163.html)

The device used in this case was one approved by the Minister of Justice. It was therefore unnecessary for the Crown to call expert evidence respecting “the function and operation of the speed-timing device or of its efficiency for the purpose of determining the speed at which motor vehicles are being driven.” The sole remaining burden on the Crown was to prove that the device was in good working order.
5 The Crown attempted to prove the device to have been in good working order by eliciting from the officer evidence that he conducted three tests of the device to satisfy himself that it was working properly: a fixed-distance zero-velocity test, a scope alignment test and a display test. The officer said that, respectively, these tests were meant to satisfy him that the device was accurately measuring the speed of a moving object, locking on to the object at which it was aimed and communicating its measurements to him.
6 The officer was not, however, qualified as an expert and the sufficiency of the tests to establish the device as being in good working order was not otherwise supported by admissible evidence. Nor is their sufficiency self-evident, as the following description of the fixed-distance zero-velocity test shows: The operator points the laser at a wall or other stationary object from a pre-measured distance. Distance and velocity readings are then taken. The theory is that, if the distance reading equals the pre-measured distance and the velocity reading is zero, the device is in proper order to record the velocity of a moving object.
7 The theory may be correct, but perhaps I, as a scientific layman, can be forgiven for wondering how a test of the device’s ability to record a stationary object as one that is not moving proves it to be functioning properly when measuring the speed of a moving object. For the theory to be accepted, there must be, in my opinion, either evidence from an expert or admissible evidence that the tests are those approved by the manufacturer of the device for checking its condition.
8 The legislature itself recognized the need for independent verification that a device relied on in a prosecution was in good working order at the relevant time. By s. 255(4) of the Act, it provided for the appointment of qualified persons as testers and for the reception of a certificate of such a tester certifying as to the accuracy of the device as prima facie evidence that that was so. Apparently no such tester has been appointed. This does not entitle the Crown to prove the accuracy of the device by evidence that the police officer who operated it tested it for accuracy without separate proof that the tests carried out are sufficient to achieve their goal.
9 There being no evidence capable of satisfying the court that the speed-timing device was in good working order, we allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and directed the entry of an acquittal.



The fact that the manufacturer recommends this "self test" does not prove the radar device was working properly. There is no judicial notice for synthisized doppler, simmulations, or internal self tests!

The question now is, how do i present this in court??


p.s. at the back of the manual, there is a section on case-law. One of the case summaries (R vs. Joudrey 1992 Nova Scotia Provincial Court) looks interesting. Here is a direct quote: "the defense lawyer cross-examined the police officer and referred to a textbook "The law on speeding and radar" and specifically to passages stating that certain atmospheric or environmental conditions could give spurious readings. The court did take judicial notice of the passages in the textbook and the accused was acquited."

I can't find the full text of this decision. Are any of you aware of this decision and how it can be used in defence?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 1:57 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:49 pm
Posts: 1490
Location: somewhere in traffic
With what you just wrote, I wouldn't want to answer the questions........ However, HwyBear has mentioned in the past that there is a fourth test. It is completed in the office by a guy on a computer. This test simulates the emitted radiation, light with LIDAR. However, at no point is the actual intensity of the LIDAR beam tested. As I understand it, while in test mode the unit will emit a sound that changes in frequency with the strength of the signal being returned. This could be used but there is no display, i.e. 60%, 75% return.

When you fight your ticket, there is a point in the trial where the JP will ask if there is anything else you want to add, it's usually after the officer takes the stand and you give your 2 cents. This is where you can introduce case law to shoot down the prosecution. Good luck.

_________________
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 2:10 pm 
Offline
Jr. Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 10:55 am
Posts: 68
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Reflections wrote:
With what you just wrote, I wouldn't want to answer the questions........ However, HwyBear has mentioned in the past that there is a fourth test. It is completed in the office by a guy on a computer. This test simulates the emitted radiation, light with LIDAR. However, at no point is the actual intensity of the LIDAR beam tested. As I understand it, while in test mode the unit will emit a sound that changes in frequency with the strength of the signal being returned. This could be used but there is no display, i.e. 60%, 75% return.

When you fight your ticket, there is a point in the trial where the JP will ask if there is anything else you want to add, it's usually after the officer takes the stand and you give your 2 cents. This is where you can introduce case law to shoot down the prosecution. Good luck.


Hi Reflections,
Why wouldn't you want to answer the questions?
Also, you mention a fourth test in regards to LIDAR. In my case, only RADAR was used.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 6:14 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
Posts: 2881
Location: Toronto
I'll try to answer this to the best of my ability. (This will be a long read.) Some things for court:

Is the officer in question an expert? We won't know until the day of trial. An "expert" only needs to know more than a "trier of fact." Hwybear, for example, would be considered an "expert." If the officer is not an expert, did he comply with the instructions of the manual for the tests by reading the manual and then doing the tests? Does the manufacturer guarantee that these tests will be accurate for a certain period of time? Why/why not? Where's the "lifetime guarantee" (if any)? Did the officer complete a "tracking history" as required by the manufacturer? (See the R. v Hawkins case: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/20 ... cj101.html)

Reflections covered when to present your information. Give it a shot and see what happens. "Your Worship, I would like to respectfully present evidence to the court that the internal test of the radar device by Constable So-and-So is not sufficient to prove that it was working properly. The Crown has an obligation, as affirmed by D'Astous v. Baie Comeau (1992), to show that the device must be accurate as verified by a test." Then go and present the rest of the evidence. Where does the manufacturer demonstrate that the internal test is valid? How have they proven it is equivalent to a tuning fork? It appears as though, as you said, there is no judicial notice. Submit that you think that this test is a "novel technology" and has to be verified with something proven. (At least, if I were going your route, that's what I'd do.) No guarantee if it will work or not, a lot of JPs are resistant to the idea!

Now... here's the bad news. It looks like the Genesis II has a built-in transmitter that synthesizes the Doppler shift of radar signals that occurs when they strike a moving object. A tuning fork does the same thing. So the Genesis effectively has an "electronic tuning fork." Some radar devices only have internal self-tests that check the circuitry and processor but not the antenna, but it looks like that's not the case here. Both the synthesizer and radar would have to be out of calibration for a false-positive "pass," which is highly unlikely, same as a tuning fork being out of calibration and the radar it is testing at the same time. But the court likely doesn't know that information, the Prosecutor won't either... maybe the officer won't. See how it goes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 6:40 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Posts: 2933
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!
Reflections wrote:
With what you just wrote, I wouldn't want to answer the questions........ However, HwyBear has mentioned in the past that there is a fourth test. It is completed in the office by a guy on a computer. This test simulates the emitted radiation, light with LIDAR. .


Sorry Reflections...I know of no such test with a computer.....maybe you misunderstood something.

LIDAR works on a totally different principle than RADAR. Therefore the fixed distance test at a stationary object is proper.

_________________
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:22 am 
Offline
Sr. Member

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:49 pm
Posts: 346
Interesting thread.

Ticket Combat if you are in the GTA area Beltronics used to be in Mississauga. They had a research lab i think.

Maybee you should call them and stop by they might be able to help you out on that.

Absolutely radar and lidar work on different principles.

Just for curious how often is that "specific vehicle/ sure it was this one" tried with radar?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Related topics
 Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Ignition interlock devices, further provisions - Sec 41.3

admin

0

1917

Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:17 am

admin View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Reinstatement conditions, ignition interlock devices - 41.2

admin

0

3374

Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:20 am

admin View the latest post

This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Regulations, safety devices Section 102

admin

0

1036

Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:18 pm

admin View the latest post

This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Speed measuring warning devices Sect 79

racer

0

2261

Sat Feb 07, 2009 11:35 pm

racer View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. bluetooth devices / cell phones / distraction

bobajob

7

729

Thu May 08, 2014 7:44 pm

hawaii View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Testing Radar Unit

Curtisloew

5

526

Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:18 pm

Stanton View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Lidar testing and operation

gramada2

0

1499

Fri Oct 25, 2013 2:28 pm

gramada2 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Field Sobriety Testing

Bob in Ontario

3

191

Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:08 pm

Nanuk View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Breath testing, general - Section 48

admin

0

2345

Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:55 am

admin View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Lidar - Multiple User Testing

[ Go to pageGo to page: 1, 2 ]

hwybear

18

2078

Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:14 pm

Radar Identified View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Genesis II Select-testing before AND after stop?

[ Go to pageGo to page: 1, 2 ]

HTARep

21

5956

Tue Oct 01, 2013 10:00 am

greenbox View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. testing genesis ii select directional

vamosrafa

3

1802

Thu May 06, 2010 12:20 pm

Radar Identified View the latest post

 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Web Development & Search Engine Optimization
Home | Court Listings | Ontario Traffic Ticket

Copyright 2007 - 2017 © Microtekblue Inc. Web Development & Search Engine Optimization Service. We Support phpBB All Rights Reserved.