Got caught going 166 km/h on highway. Need help!

[turbodish]

to think that a guy going along a controlled access highway and considers his pace to be going with the flow deserves the kinda punishment he's getting is bent

What people claim and maybe even believe themselves to have been doing and what they were actually doing are not always the same.

The OP may have considered himself to have been "going with the flow", but examining that raises some questions. He claims to have been in the HOV lane "following" a car that did not have lights on.

I was following a car with no lights on from when I got into the HOV lane at Burloak. (I remember because the Burloak Mall and Movie theater were on my left hand side)
I was following this car until it pulled out of the HOV lane. I remember when it pulled out of the HOV lane the Walkers Line exit sign was in the distance, which means that I was relatively close to the exit of walkers line.
The cop said that he was about to pull the guy over for not having his lights on when I came passed him.
The cop said he then ditched the automobile with no lights in pursuit of me.
He pulled me off at Guelph Line.

Thats the story, I must have been going a speed slower than 166 because I was following the car with no lights since burloak, and then in the span of 2 km I supposedly sped past the car with no lights, got up to 166, the cop sped up to me, paced me for long enough to establish speed, and then pulled me over.

The HOV "lanes" are one lane wide. Once in, you're relegated to single-file traffic and there is no legal opportunity to pass another vehicle in front until you reach designated HOV lane entry and exit points.

If the OP was travelling at the same speed as that car that did not have its lights on, and that other car was also travelling well above the speed limit, then why would the OPP not stop that other car and get twice the bang for the stop - both speeding (and maybe even 50+ stunting), and a lights-not-on charge as the bonus charge? Why drop the two-for-one deal to focus on the OP instead?

The OP mentions that the lights-off car pulled out of the HOV lane to head for the Walkers Line off-ramp. Was that the cue for the OP (now that the single lane of the HOV lane he was in was clear of an impeding car in front) to stand on the gas and move to a much higher speed? If so, then that would explain why the cop's attention got shifted to the OP instead of the car with no lights on. And if so, then at that point your OP is no longer "going with the flow", is he?

Further, if the OP started an acceleration run when the other car pulled out of the HOV lane and left him with a clear lane ahead, then the police cruiser would have no problem at all in accelerating to match the OP's acceleration, and that in turn means that the cop would not have had to do much if any "catch up" to the OP in order to match speeds and pace him to obtain his speed.

The distance available for acceleration would be considerably more than just 2.0 km. It is 2 km from Walkers Line to Guelph Line. The off-ramp for Walkers begins 750 to 800 meters before Walker's. The HOV lanes would have to "break" to allow traffic a chance to exit well in advance of the start of the Walkers Line off-ramp, probably another 750 or more meters. Now you're looking at 3.5 km between the point when the car with no lights left the HOV lane and got out of the OP's way, until the time the OP was pulled over. That's plenty of room for even an anemic car to go from 103 (or more?) to 166 kmph.

That's cold hard analysis of the OP's own words. There's no "glee" in that analysis, or in the analysis of how to best resolve the ticket in a way that minimizes further legal and financial risk to the OP.

That said, I am happy that the cops, whose salaries are paid out in part out of my tax dollars, are out on the roads doing their jobs. I'm certainly going to applaud them when they do the job that we pay them to do.

 

[roadtoruin]

What i'd like to know is how much of my tax dollars is going to you to troll this place day in day out. Or are you retired from the force, and just that lonely with clearly nothing better to do? Kinda feel sad for you.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I fail to understand why you think that the "passing" comment is so important to your stance as, despite the fact that the HOV lane is a single lane, you can be constantly passing slower vehicles that are to your right, in the normal traffic lanes.

I've also been preferentially targeted by police, to be followed, despite there being faster moving vehicles and vehicles whose drivers have failed to single multiple lane changes, on more occasions than I care to number. I did not receive tickets nor was I stopped, on those occasions, though I was followed for several Kilometres. Why did they give up obvious infractions for the possibility of one, for a motorcyclist? Only they can say.

 

[FiReSTaRT]

Why did they give up obvious infractions for the possibility of one, for a motorcyclist? Only they can say.

Because motorcyclists KILL CHILDREN!!!! :shock: And I have the super-duper extra-special statistics to prove it

On that note, I got a pacing ticket on the 407 once.. If the cop really did pace me for that distance, he would have seen me passed by a couple of food delivery trucks, a pickup and a couple of vans. He still went after the slower-moving motorcycle.. Why? Read my explanation above..........

 

[GSXMAER]

turbodish & rob maclennan......get a room.....you guys do this way TOO much.....thread ruined

 

[yee_boys69]

well since this thread has been ruined..im going to throw in my 2 cents.

Turbo is a troll, everyone knows this. I'm willing to bet he is no cop though. Probably more of a Mr. lahey ( I bet his best friend is Randy too). I bet he gets a grin from ear to ear whenever someone on her says he a cop. Always wanted to be one but never could. He just lives vicariously throught here, maybe some COPS and AMW when he's watching tv. Probably doesn't ride, and just spends most of his time searching for stats to try and back up his pointless arguments on here....

anyways good talk gtam its a nice day out, and im going to enjoy my day off. IM GOING FOR A RIDE!

 

[Rob MacLennan]

turbodish & rob maclennan......get a room.....you guys do this way TOO much.....thread ruined

Unfortunately the only advice, that the OP could actually make use of, was given on page 1.

 

[mxs]

turbodish & rob maclennan......get a room.....you guys do this way TOO much.....thread ruined

Rob can stay, turbo is out.

 

[Metastable]

Turbo - your analysis of this is LAME. Why? Because you are assuming everything. Neither you or I were there. I ask this.... assuming I take the OP as the gospel of truth.... Why would another cop who didn't pace the OP give him the ticket? Could it be because the cop that did pace him was new and didn't know exactly what he should do? If that is the case, could it be that the new cop didn't do a proper job of pacing him. Furthermore, if that is the case, could it be possible the cop made a mistake and now the OP is out money despite never going 50+? If this were true, don't you think that for these exact reasons, there should be recourse for recuperating damages to the one charged, when it is done so incorrectly?

Anyway - I wasn't there, I don't know what happened... neither were you, all you wrote is garbage... because you have no clue as to what really happened do you? I don't.... unless you get info from another source you know just as much as I do about this. So you can take what I wrote above as garbage as well... because I was just speculating.

 

[mxs]

why don't you put down the keyboard and take that imaginary bike of yours for a ride....maybe even take some pics while you're out there and post them up here

you're not giving any advise whatsoever to the OP....you're just antagonizing him as you type with glee about your beloved law screwing yet another person

to think that a guy going along a controlled access highway and considers his pace to be going with the flow deserves the kinda punishment he's getting is bent

Sorry, can't do man. Too tempting to celebrate the "nice catch" ...

 

[mxs]

Turbo - your analysis of this is LAME. Why? Because you are assuming everything. Neither you or I were there. I ask this.... assuming I take the OP as the gospel of truth.... Why would another cop who didn't pace the OP give him the ticket? Could it be because the cop that did pace him was new and didn't know exactly what he should do? If that is the case, could it be that the new cop didn't do a proper job of pacing him. Furthermore, if that is the case, could it be possible the cop made a mistake and now the OP is out money despite never going 50+? If this were true, don't you think that for these exact reasons, there should be recourse for recuperating damages to the one charged, when it is done so incorrectly?

Anyway - I wasn't there, I don't know what happened... neither were you, all you wrote is garbage... because you have no clue as to what really happened do you? I don't.... unless you get info from another source you know just as much as I do about this. So you can take what I wrote above as garbage as well... because I was just speculating.

I think you hit the nail on the head. It's not about advice for Turbo, it's about taking apart a post describing what happened. Once he does that, it's easy because people are upset about his blue line spiel and that's exactly what he's waiting for. Around with his keyboard "waiting to help" and rub the salt in with HTA172. And as such we go on and on and on ..... it will never stop.

It's like letting a Liberal MP to post into PC's forum ... LOL

 

[Poser]

if it wasn't for turbo, the OP wouldn't have got all the info he needed to know, its his first.
whether it be good or bad, its better to have worst case scenarios, along with the good ones.

i hate the word troll, the same way i hate fanboi or is it fanboy...

 

[mxs]

if it wasn't for turbo, the OP wouldn't have got all the info he needed to know, its his first.
whether it be good or bad, its better to have worst case scenarios, along with the good ones.

Info like what??? That he's a toast and that the cop is right. And of course that HTA172 conviction rate is pretty good?

Fanboy of who or what??? It doesn't even make sense to start with.

 

[Poser]

Info like what??? That he's a toast and that the cop is right. And of course that HTA172 conviction rate is pretty good?

Fanboy of who or what??? It doesn't even make sense to start with.

info from the whole thread, of people disagreeing with turbo, agreeing with some, and other people suggestions.
basically turbo kept the thread alive, and others chimed in, thats what i was trying to say.

fanboy has nothing to do with this thread, just saying i hate the word, the same way i hate "troll"....

 

[turbodish]

Info like what??? That he's a toast and that the cop is right. And of course that HTA172 conviction rate is pretty good?

Do you think it's better to mislead the OP into thinking that getting off on an HTA172 charge is an easy slam-dunk? If so, then maybe you should line up with metastable and company to help guarantee the OP a suitable financial safety net if that easy slam dunk doesn't come to pass.

If the OP decides to fight the ticket and testify on his own behalf, do you think that Crown won't try to pick his story apart at trial? I can find some significant discrepancies and question points based solely on highway geography and the OP's own words, and I wasn't even there. What do you think the Crown would be able to do with the testimony of the cops who were actually there? Better the OP has an idea of what's in store if he goes that route than get blindsided at trial.

 

[Zangief]

I was following the dude with no lights, yes, but the cop said that he saw the guy with no lights aswell, and was about to pull him over. This means that the cop was already behind me when I was following the guy with no lights. Like you said, the car with no lights must have been going at a reasonable speed becaue the cop would have had a two for one. So, the car with no lights pulls off, the cop sees me accelerate, and then decides to follow me (possibly because I'm in a black mustang with tinted windows). There is no way you could gauge acceleration when your focusing on a car with no lights, traffic, me, etc. Even if he could, the fact that he let the car with no lights on go in order to follow me when I was keeping speed shows prejudice. If he's following me because I look suspicious whos to say he won't try to cover his *** to make himself feel like he made the right decision?

Oh and by the way, I appreciate ALL comments, even if their overly negative, because I know this isn't going to be an easy fight, and even having someone constantly troll the thread and play devils advocate is cool because I need to get a feel for what can be used against me and if there are any possible things I originally missed so thanks to all!

 

[turbodish]

I was following the dude with no lights, yes, but the cop said that he saw the guy with no lights aswell, and was about to pull him over. This means that the cop was already behind me when I was following the guy with no lights. Like you said, the car with no lights must have been going at a reasonable speed becaue the cop would have had a two for one. So, the car with no lights pulls off, the cop sees me accelerate, and then decides to follow me (possibly because I'm in a black mustang with tinted windows).

You stated that the cop was following at 103 kmph. Would that be the reasonable speed that the car without lights was maintaining in the HOV lane, and why the cop didn't stop him for a 2-for-1 speeding and no-lights charge?

Then that car leaves the HOV lane and you start to accelerate. Would it be reasonable to assume that your starting speed from which you accelerated was 103 kmph, and you accelerated as soon as that other car had cleared out of your way?

Would it also be reasonable to assume that the car left the HOV lanes at a place where it was permitted to do so? After all, a cop was following, and a car without lights on AND crossing from HOV to regular lanes in a no-crossing area would give the cop an instant 2-for-1 catch.

If all this is correct so far, the last opportunity to legally leave the HOV lanes before Walkers Line is as you approach the Appleby Line overpass, a full 4 km before the Guelph Line overpass and plenty of room in which to accelerate to HTA172 territory. Any argument about it being physically impossible for your car to get up to the speed claimed by the cop are way out the window by now.

There is no way you could gauge acceleration when your focusing on a car with no lights, traffic, me, etc. Even if he could, the fact that he let the car with no lights on go in order to follow me when I was keeping speed shows prejudice. If he's following me because I look suspicious whos to say he won't try to cover his *** to make himself feel like he made the right decision?

Why do you say that the cop would not be able to tell if you're accelerating away from him? I can look at a nearby car and know in an instant if I'm gaining on, falling back from, or maintaining station with that car. It's a required basic skill for any car driver in a busy traffic environment, let alone a traffic cop. The OPP patrolling the major GTA highways are pretty much all assigned to the Highway Safety Division, which is really just a glorified name for a division full of traffic cops.

If you challenge the cop on his ability to gauge acceleration, on what specific aspect will you base that challenge? And if the subject matter expert in the matter (that being the cop) states that he had no difficulty doing so, where will be your expert foundation on which to challenge his assertion?

Why would he feel a need to cover his *** to make himself feel like he made the right decision? That's a busy highway. If he decides to pass on ticketing one vehicle after following it for a bit, another worthy of a ticket is sure to pass by within a few minutes at most. Your story only confirms that - the cop passed on a car travelling at reasonable speeds but with no lights on (other than DRLs I assume) to go after a car that accelerated past the first car on its way to what the cop believed to be HTA172 territory. Many would call that a reasonable choice of priorities.

So what exactly is the basis of your defence going to be again? Not enough distance to accelerate to the alleged 166 kmph? No, that won't work, there was plenty of room. Cop should have pulled over the car that had no lights on? No, cops have discretion to pick and choose which of multiple target offenders to stop. Cop tried to cover his *** by giving you a ticket? No, a cop doesn't have to give a ticket to every car they choose to follow for a bit. Cop didn't have enough time to pace you? No, cop had at least 2 km in which to pace you and potentially as much as 3 or 4 km to do so.

Oh and by the way, I appreciate ALL comments, even if their overly negative, because I know this isn't going to be an easy fight, and even having someone constantly troll the thread and play devils advocate is cool because I need to get a feel for what can be used against me and if there are any possible things I originally missed so thanks to all!

If you want to fight the big fight against a big ticket, be prepared for the big bite out of your *** and wallet if you lose, and a hefty bite even if you beat the odds and win. I personally don't see much working in your favour though.

 

[promac]

if it wasn't for turbo, the OP wouldn't have got all the info he needed to know, its his first.
whether it be good or bad, its better to have worst case scenarios, along with the good ones.

I agree...........and you can't sugar coat everything. You have to explore all the angles, test them and evaluate the feedback. What's that sig that toys4boys has "if you going to court, go well armed"? Rob and/or Turbo's perspective might just be the same as that of the JP, Judge or Crown Attorney. I certainly can't improve on any of my ideas or strategies without others validating or shooting holes in them........I appreciate the time they've taken to contribute, even if I don't agree - there is always value. However, I don't see much in the personal attacks from others.

 

[RockerGuy]

Fanboy of who or what??? It doesn't even make sense to start with.

Everybody calls him an Apple Fanboi, thats why

 

[Zangief]

If you want to fight the big fight against a big ticket, be prepared for the big bite out of your *** and wallet if you lose, and a hefty bite even if you beat the odds and win. I personally don't see much working in your favour though.

I can't see how I don't have much riding for me?
The cop says he was following someone else, distraction.
The cop says he was going 103 km/h when I passed him, much slower than me, which DOESN'T mean he CAN'T catch me, but means that he needs time TO catch up.
The cop admitted to not having a radar gun.
First he said he saw 166 in his speedometer then he said I was in that range and he ballparked it.
The cop who wrote the ticket wasn't the original cop that pulled me over.
I was given conflicting information from both police officers.

The way you spin it turbo makes it seem like this was an open and shut case.
If you look at it from another point of view, the cop has absolutely NO objective evidence for me going that fast besides the fact that he says so.