hwybear wrote:Reflections wrote:Remember that the crown does not want to be in traffic court listening to the same canned testimony all the time, neither does the judge. .
Nor do police ,we would rather be back on the road, stopping someone else 
So it's agreed... We all want to avoid court. So stop writing tickets and the problem is solved! 
I'm heading down to "Fantino-country" on Friday. I'll feel like I'm swimming in shark-infested waters, hehe. I have assigned each kid a job: one watches for cruisers parked on the side of the road; one watches the sky for airplanes; and one watches out the back for pacing cruisers! See, if you have enough kids, you don't need a radar detector, LOL!
If all that fails, I'll have to try name-dropping; "Gee officer... you don't happen to know a good friend of mine do you... goes by the handle "Hywbear"? LMAO
hwybear wrote:...MV are either coming towards the radar or going away, 99% approaching the cruiser.
This has always puzzled me. I thought (for a charge to stick) the officer had to testify that he visually estimated the defendants speed. This speed was then backed by readings from a mechanical device (radar/lidar/speedo, etc). But surely it would be much more difficult to visually estimate a vehicle approaching virtually head-on, rather than at a large viewing angle which would be inadequate for speed-detecting devices.
Also, is it really possible to perform accurate visual estimates while looking through a Lidar gun. Most of the Youtube clips I see show the officer picking cars off one after another solely by targeting them with the Lidar gun... hmmm.
I was actually FOR the racing legislation when I thought it's sole focus was on this type of stuff (heart patients should avoid viewing, hehe): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHNy4xfBaPs
Boy, was I duped