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

[promac]

Without knowing the OP's driving history, it would be remiss to leave such things out. If he has a large number of past speeding infractions, for example, a JP might choose to make an example of him.

I've seen a JP make an example of someone - a kid charged and convicted of careless, he gave an additional 6 month licence suspension.

I'd imagine though, that a HTA 172 would automatically be heard in provincial offenses court in front of a real judge who puts people away for serious crimes - not that HTA 172 isn't serious, but it's much less serious than murder or armed robbery. A JP just doesn't exist in that realm, so I'd imagine HTA 172 would be considered a high-crime to him/her.

Anyway, make sure your representative has your charge heard in provincial offences court.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

It's typically heard in front of a JP, like any other HTA offence.

 

[Prince]

IIRC, police cars have calibrated spedometers.

Are they calibrated every day? Every week? I've seen VSS Bullets so worn out they're elongated on high-miler cars. The aluminum housing wears. One could argue that the cruiser being an unmarked car, is just a regular car, and thus subject to wear and tear. Even regular cruisers are subject to the same. OP go online and Google for 'VSS (vehicle speed sensor) campaigns (recalls) from the big three. They all have recalls. I know this 'cause I've done them. The evidence is too subjective here. They do not have the OP clocked on radar or distance. He has a clean record. I will put money on this case being tossed due to the list of facts the OP wrote, add the argument of mechanical validity of a regular cars ability to gauge speed being a high miler car and thus susceptible to substantial wear (show VSS recalls). And the fact that another officer wrote the ticket and the charging officer stated "166 range." In truth this predatory prick has no idea how fast the OP was going and was hunting for 172 charges.

 

[turbodish]

Are they calibrated every day? Every week? I've seen VSS Bullets so worn out they're elongated on high-miler cars. The aluminum housing wears. One could argue that the cruiser being an unmarked car, is just a regular car, and thus subject to wear and tear. Even regular cruisers are subject to the same. OP go online and Google for 'VSS (vehicle speed sensor) campaigns (recalls) from the big three. They all have recalls. I know this 'cause I've done them. The evidence is too subjective here. They do not have the OP clocked on radar or distance. He has a clean record. I will put money on this case being tossed due to the list of facts the OP wrote, add the argument of mechanical validity of a regular cars ability to gauge speed being a high miler car and thus susceptible to substantial wear (show VSS recalls). And the fact that another officer wrote the ticket and the charging officer stated "166 range." In truth this predatory prick has no idea how fast the OP was going and was hunting for 172 charges.

Unmarked cruisers are not "regular" cars. They have the same police package specifications that the cars with light bars on the roof have. That package includes certified speedometers, and those speedometers are regularly checked as part of routine maintenance. The evidence of a reading taken from the display of a certified speedometer is no more subjective than a reading taken from an unlocked radar display or from a manually-triggered stopwatch. In each the display provides a number, and the cop writes down that number.

Are you going to suggest that those are also too subjective for the court to accept? If so you're sniffing fumes because the courts are accepting all those forms of evidence day-in and day-out, and have been for decades.

You say you'll put money on the OP getting off? Tell you what - put your money where your mouth is. Give the OP the minimum $2000 fine due on conviction right up front. Add in the same amount again to cover the hefty insurance hike he'll face if convicted.

That way you actually ARE putting your "money on this case being tossed due to the list of facts the OP wrote". Somehow though, I think you'll pass on that offer.

 

[Prince]

Unmarked cruisers are not "regular" cars. They have the same police package specifications that the cars with light bars on the roof have. That package includes certified speedometers, and those speedometers are regularly checked as part of routine maintenance. The evidence of a reading taken from the display of a certified speedometer is no more subjective than a reading taken from an unlocked radar display or from a manually-triggered stopwatch. In each the display provides a number, and the cop writes down that number.

Are you going to suggest that those are also too subjective for the court to accept? If so you're sniffing fumes because the courts are accepting all those forms of evidence day-in and day-out, and have been for decades.

You say you'll put money on the OP getting off? Tell you what - put your money where your mouth is. Give the OP the minimum $2000 fine due on conviction right up front. Add in the same amount again to cover the hefty insurance hike he'll face if convicted.

That way you actually ARE putting your "money on this case being tossed due to the list of facts the OP wrote". Somehow though, I think you'll pass on that offer.

An unmarked cruiser and an unmarked car are two different things. You seem to want to scare the OP beyond what the OPP have already scared him. At the end of the day it's still a speeding offense with subjective evidence of a cop telling the OP that "he was somewhere in the range..." A cop just can't say that.

I will "wager" that the OP does not end up convicted of 166 over.

 

[turbodish]

An unmarked cruiser and an unmarked car are two different things. You seem to want to scare the OP beyond what the OPP pricks have already scared him. At the end of the day it's still a speeding offense with subjective evidence of a cop telling the OP that "he was somewhere in the range..." A cop just can't say that.

I will "wager" that the OP does not end up being convicted of 166 over.

The unmarked cars used by the OPP's Highway Safety Division for general traffic enforcement are still full police package cruisers. Unmarked cars used by city drug squad and other undercover cops can be something else altogether, but they are not used for by the OPP for patrolling the highways.

At the end of the day it's a really hefty speeding offence, with the charges having been laid by a traffic cop whose day-in and day-out job is to lay those types of charges, and also to go to court to help prosecute those charges. Saying that is stating fact. You suggesting that he'll easily get off is telling fairy tales even before you start adding in your nonsensical reasons for why you think he'll get off.

And yes, I see you've backed off putting your money where your mouth is.

 

[promac]

Even if the officer's speedo is calibrated, I'd imagine it would be calibrated to + 3-5% as a standard margin of error to ensure cars don't travel faster than the speed limit. Then, as the tires wear, the diameter of the wheel becomes less and the car's actual speed is less than reported by the speedo - that could be another 2-4%. The most aggravating factor would be the officer's ability to pace the target at night, while breaking his attention to pace and distance to monitor his speedo. It's hard enough to judge non-moving distance - especially at night. So, accurate to 11%............I don't think so. You certainly wouldn't give someone the death sentence with that much doubt.

Although it may have no bearing on your case, another thing that I find remarkable is the officer's claim that he was initially travelling at a speed of 103kph. I've never seen a police cruiser travelling within even 5% of the maximum posted speed limit - unless it's a funeral procession. Why would he make such a claim?

 

[turbodish]

Even if the officer's speedo is calibrated, I'd imagine it would be calibrated to + 3-5% as a standard margin of error to ensure cars don't travel faster than the speed limit.

Stated accuracy on police certified speedos is within 2%.

The most aggravating factor would be the officer's ability to pace the target at night, while breaking his attention to pace and distance to monitor his speedo. It's hard enough to judge non-moving distance - especially at night. So, accurate to 11%............I don't think so. You certainly wouldn't give someone the death sentence with that much doubt.

You're making too much out of this. If the cop is within 100 or 200 meters while pacing, the issue of day or night makes no difference at all. The supposed issue of "breaking his attention to pace and monitor" is also far overstated for reasons already mentioned. And no, the OP is not being exposed to the death sentence.

Although it may have no bearing on your case, another thing that I find remarkable is the officer's claim that he was initially travelling at a speed of 103kph. I've never seen a police cruiser travelling within even 5% of the maximum posted speed limit - unless it's a funeral procession. Why would he make such a claim?

Why is that remarkable? The OP claims that the cop was initially observing the car without lights on. That car was directly in front of the OP in the same lane (HOV lane) as the OP, and in effect setting the pace for the two of them until it pulled out of that lane at the Appleby Line overpass..

If that first car was travelling at 103 kmph or even slightly higher but not high enough to trigger being pulled over by the cop, then why would it be so unusual for the cop to be travelling at 103 kmph while observing the first car and deciding whether or not to stop it?

That same HOV "parade" also works against any argument of the cop being "distracted" and not able to adequately note the OP's driving, especially given that the OP says that he passed the cop at one point.

 

[Twoth]

Even if the officer's speedo is calibrated, I'd imagine it would be calibrated to + 3-5% as a standard margin of error to ensure cars don't travel faster than the speed limit. Then, as the tires wear, the diameter of the wheel becomes less and the car's actual speed is less than reported by the speedo - that could be another 2-4%.

2% is on the high end, not the low end... this won't hold up in court it's suspicion. If you're trying to argue that the officers vehicle is not up to par, you're just shooting blanks and this will get you nowhere. If it was 1km/h over 50 maybe, but 16k over will be hard to win that battle, and will make you sound stupid. Get a lawyer and don't listen to these ridiculous theories, they're going to dig you a deeper hole.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

2% is on the high end, not the low end... this won't hold up in court it's suspicion. If you're trying to argue that the officers vehicle is not up to par, you're just shooting blanks and this will get you nowhere. If it was 1km/h over 50 maybe, but 16k over will be hard to win that battle, and will make you sound stupid. Get a lawyer and don't listen to these ridiculous theories, they're going to dig you a deeper hole.

It's never a bad idea to ask for the vehicle's service records, in a case like this, but I agree that theories regarding how invalid pacing is, as a means of determining speed, are about as useful as raging against helmet laws as 'unconstitutional.'

 

[Prince]

The unmarked cars used by the OPP's Highway Safety Division for general traffic enforcement are still full police package cruisers. Unmarked cars used by city drug squad and other undercover cops can be something else altogether, but they are not used for by the OPP for patrolling the highways.

At the end of the day it's a really hefty speeding offence, with the charges having been laid by a traffic cop whose day-in and day-out job is to lay those types of charges, and also to go to court to help prosecute those charges. Saying that is stating fact. You suggesting that he'll easily get off is telling fairy tales even before you start adding in your nonsensical reasons for why you think he'll get off.

And yes, I see you've backed off putting your money where your mouth is.

You're the guy that pisses everyone off on here aren't you? I've heard of you. There are a lot of people that want to find you in person. You should learn to speak to others with more respect as sooner or later you will come across those you've ****** off.

The OP seems to have disappeared. We don't know if it was an OPP cruiser, or an unmarked car. The OP stated that another cop had to write the ticket. Perhaps the pacing cop is not a traffic cop at all and in a regular car, which would strengthen the OP's defense even more.

 

[Zangief]

Not disappeared, still here, the cop that pulled me over was in an undercover impala, and the cop that wrote me the ticket was in an OPP black and white standard car. I've been busy as of late talking to lawyers and getting consultations so I havn't been able to respond as quick as I'd like to. I still appreciate everyones inputs though.

 

[D23]

Although I like to stay out of these types of threads I'll just offer this.

I know for a fact that if you get paced there has to be a 10 KPH leeway given on the paced speed to cover any minor mechanical issues such as tire wear, speedo calibration accel/decel etc.

Unfortunately, that would still put you over the 50 KPH rule as it's still his word that you were doing at the least 156.

Any argument you have along those lines will be sucked up by that. Just so you know....