To clkio - I never said that "going 50 over limit" = "racing". I just said that the penalty is the same. However, if you DO race AND go 50 over the limit, that WILL land you 12 demerit points.... So do judge accordingly.
On the summons section of the ticket, it says his court date is in 20008, whereas the rest of the document has 2008 everywhere...is this something that can be argued? He has past speeding offenses in Manitoba when he was younger, and one that was in the 30km/hr over section 8 months ago...that means that he didn't make it the 1 year probation term so it also counts...and he may be in huge trouble and pay for the 10,000 fine as well as go to jail.
Any opinions or suggestions??
We'd really appreciate it!! If people are speeding on the 401 with tonnes of other cars all going 140...they should all be pulled over, or those that go a little faster once in a while in no danger to anyone but themselves, there should be a little leniancy...no?
I despise every aspect of this law!
Sign the Petition please!
Absolutely NOT.tager576 wrote:If people are speeding on the 401 with tonnes of other cars all going 140...they should all be pulled over, or those that go a little faster once in a while in no danger to anyone but themselves, there should be a little leniancy...no?
Radar can round up the figure. For example, a speed of 140.3947 km/h would read 141 km/h. To offset the rounding error, there should be a reduction of 1 or 2 km/h. I can't remember where that's posted. FYST?Bookm wrote:Do the laser/radar manuals not specify an accuracy tolerance of 2+/- kph?? I'm sure I read that on another forum somewhere.
There is always the cosine effect on both lidar and radar which is always in favour of the defendant (clocked vehicle), it will always read lower than actual speed. This is b/c it is impossible to stand directly in front of a motor vehicle and have the unit at 3 feet off the ground to get a absolute direct hit......unless we could pop out of manhole covers.....hmmm, there's an ideaBookm wrote:Do the laser/radar manuals not specify an accuracy tolerance of 2+/- kph?? I'm sure I read that on another forum somewhere.
This would make an enormous difference in this example.
You would have to change your name to gopherbear..........hahahahaha......unless we could pop out of manhole covers.....hmmm, there's an idea
I could see it now too
Driver: I just heard a thump and there it was, Cam Wooley's head stuck right to my licence plate. Damn thing is so big it set off the air bags.
I could go on......
There is SWEEP to consider. The light beam is invisible, so the officer can't truthfully testify he knows EXACTLY what part of the car was hit. Someone worked out the math for a typical car getting "hit" over the length of his hood:
SWEEP in the operators manuals....To force the gun to obtain a reading officers "paint" the hood of the vehicle to get a large reflection. It works. Its been mentioned on web sites, in the operators manual(s)
The math is adding or subtracting 4 feet of hood length (like in an A4 Audi) to the 88 feet per second.
60 MPH is 88 Feet per sec so what is 92 feet per sec?
X MPH is 92 FPS
88 X = (60 * 92)
88X = (5520)
88 X 5520
------ = --------
X = 62.727272727272
or 62.727272727 MPH
The leading edge of the roof line above the windshield is ~7 feet from the bumper/light/plate, in a diagonal a bit more.............
88 X = (60 * 95) 5700
X = 64.77272727272727
Now the beam's invisible to the eye, so where did the beam REALLY reflect from?
The certification of the LIDAR unit and the accuracy of the alignment tests are where I'd go...........BUT we just mathematically got you 4.7 MPH closer acquittal.