REVscene Automotive Forum - Excessive speeding, car impounded

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)

- Police Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/police-forum_143/)

- - Excessive speeding, car impounded (https://www.revscene.net/forums/650502-excessive-speeding-car-impounded.html)

Excessive speeding, car impounded

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlines_Daily (Post 7525722)

I was driving on hwy 1 east bound towards vancouver from North Van. I passed through the tunnel after the bridge. As I was coming out of the tunnel I noticed a police car parked at the exit facing the same direction as traffic flow. I passed him doing around 90km/hr(possibly 100, Im not exactly sure). He pulled me over came up to my window and told me I would be losing my car for 7 days for traveling at 143km/hr. I told him I was not traveling that fast and I asked to see the radar. He told me I cannot see the radar because he did not get a lock on me. I asked him how he radared me when he wasnt in the tunnel and could not see the tunnel from where his car was sitting. He told me the radar shot backwards from his car into the tunnel, hit the fastest object and came back. He knew it was me because he could hear my car and was watching me in his rear view mirror. He later told me that he radared me at 111km/hr as I passed him. The ticket he gave me is for $485 and is cited as excessive speeding. He also impounded my car for 7 days. I believe the speed limit through the tunnel is 70km/hr.

I am wanting to dispute this ticket as I don't believe he has radar evidence of my speed. I am willing to accept a lesser charge of speeding at 20km/hr over(the speed I believe I was traveling at) or IF he does have a radar read out of me at 111km/hr, then I will accept that charge as well.

If I ask to see the radar, does the officer have an obligation to show me the read out? Also, is he correct in his statement that he can shoot the radar backwards into the tunnel without visual confirmation and without a lock on the target vehicle? It sounds a bit fishy to me..

Also, I don't know if I believe he even clocked me at 111km/hr..it sounds like he made that number up so I would be in the 40km/hr+ range to give him reason to impound my car..and he refused to show me the radar as evidence.

Any help or advice on this matter would be much appreciated. Thank you,

-J

You have asked specific questions that would require me to have been there at the time to be able to answer them but I can answer some of them in a general way.

There is no legal obligation to show you the reading and as you told us, the reading was not there anymore as it was released as part of the tracking history. There is also the concern for officer safety and for you as you walk around the cars at roadside.

He can use the rear antenna to get readings behind the PC and he would have to have some way to confirm it was your vehicle that displayed the speed. As part of his "hearing your car", he could also mean that the doppler audio shift (the sound of the beam targeting your car) matched his readings. He will have to convince the JP that it was your car. Traffic is flowing one way and you emerged into his radar beam, he has to prove it was you and not another car. Watching you in his rear view mirror would be one way.

I don't know the speed limit there but I believe that you admitted to speeding at least 20-30 over the limit, but you are not even sure yourself. You may have been going faster, braked when you saw the Cop car and then looked at your lower speed on the speedo. Happens all the time. It would be stupid and career-ending for him to enter false testimony in court just to write a speeding ticket. He doesn't get Air Miles for each one he writes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlines_Daily (Post 7525722)

Disabled man stranded, car impounded for speeding - British Columbia - CBC News

May be of some use to you given radar is regularly cited as having a 2kph margin of error, that could potentially put you at 109, and therefore under 40kph. Definitely an argument to make when requesting a review.

Unfortunately, in this case, the fellow was forced to go to the media in order to get the police to properly review his claim.

Pretty embarrassing when the media is what forces law enforcement to provide a fair trial.

I suspect with the public now knowing about the real reliability of radar, we are going to see a lot more *103kph, *113kph, *123kph etc. excessive tickets being handed out :rolleyes:

EDIT: I completely forgot, for 7 day impounds there is no review process! In this case the officer can impose a penalty without you actually being found guilty.

Your best bet would be to fight the charge in court. If the JP accepts the margin of error argument, you may be able to further pursue a case for a refund of your fees? Unfortunately no process exists for you to collect compensation for the inconvenience of being without your vehicle for 7 days and missed work or other financial burdens as a result, despite the fact the impoundment was unconstitutional.

From the OP above.,.."told me I would be losing my car for 7 days for traveling at 143km/hr".... The speed behind the PC was said to be 143/70, the speed in front after he passed the PC and on the front antenna now, had slowed to 111 in the 70k zone.

The 2k variance is composed of...either 1kmh under or 1 kmh over...not plus 2kms over. The 1 kmh variance is because the Radar "target" display only reads whole numbers...so a speed of 110.00001 kmh to 110.9999 kmh could either show as 110 or 111 kmh in whole numbers.

Funny how the guy in the article was injured due to a car accident, yet still speeds so much. Also how he had to walk four km to get picked up by his family member, couldnt the family member pick him up from where the tow truck driver would have dropped him off?
Posted via RS Mobile

Another victim of "I'm pretty sure it was you who was speeding 40 over, could have been another car, but I'm taking your car either way".

Nice to know you were there, saw what really happened and are in full posession of all the facts. :Orly:

Kinda like Elvis...I like it! Thank ya, thankya verrry much! :D

^ It's supposed to be Jim Carey in Pet Detective

zulutango, thanks for your input on the matter. Much appreciated.

My pleasure. Always willing ( some say tooooo willing) to talk if somebody wants to listen.

...and sometimes even if they don't!

do you have a radar detector?
the best ones cost exactly as much as your speeding ticket.

god damn cops.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1exotic (Post 7532362)

do you have a radar detector?
the best ones cost exactly as much as your speeding ticket.

god damn cops.

Slowing down is free. :speechless:

Instant-on Police Radar gets a target speed reading in about a second or so, Laser gets a speed reading in 1/3 of a second...obeying the limits gets you several hundred bucks not spent on detectors, in your pocket. :D

I thought radar and laser jammers were illegal?

jammers are, detectors aren't. Laser Detectors are useless though - and like Zulutango pointed out, radar detectors doesn't always give you enough time to slow down anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gars (Post 7533420)

jammers are, detectors aren't. Laser Detectors are useless though - and like Zulutango pointed out, radar detectors doesn't always give you enough time to slow down anyway.

I always tell people, radar detectors work. They beep and light up to tell you you just got a speeding ticket.

Guy I used to work with had a great comeback line when drivers he stopped were about to get a ticket...."but why can't you give me a warning?"....OK, sure.....warning! warning!...you're getting a ticket". He's retired now.

^Is his name skidmark? :lol:

Okay, who here owns the white Mazda 3 I saw on the flatbed at the speed trap on the Mary Hill Bypass this morning? :D :troll:

[QUOTE=Soundy;7533710]^Is his name skidmark? :lol:

No...it was Highway Howie"! A legend in his own mind. :)

He also got a guy to destroy his Radar Detector in exchange for not getting a ticket. Guy said it was no good as it didn't go off anyway...there was a good reason...it was a K band detector and we were using an old X Band MDR.

I was following an officer in a Saanich Police car on his way to set up a speed trap on the Malahat - he was doing 100 in an 80 zone, just going with the flow of traffic. Can we say double standard?

Makes me wonder, if a police officer was caught off guard in a transition zone, would the police car be impounded for excessive speed?

Exemption for emergency vehicles
122 (1) Despite anything in this Part, but subject to subsections (2) and (4), a driver of an emergency vehicle may do the following:

(a) exceed the speed limit;

(b) proceed past a red traffic control signal or stop sign without stopping;

(c) disregard rules and traffic control devices governing direction of movement or turning in specified directions;

(d) stop or stand.

(2) The driver of an emergency vehicle must not exercise the privileges granted by subsection (1) except in accordance with the regulations.

(3) [Repealed 1997-30-2.]

(4) The driver of an emergency vehicle exercising a privilege granted by subsection (1) must drive with due regard for safety, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the following:

(a) the nature, condition and use of the highway;

(b) the amount of traffic that is on, or might reasonably be expected to be on, the highway;

(c) the nature of the use being made of the emergency vehicle at the time.

Doesnt section 4.c state that a police officer can only exercise 1.a-d if there is a legitimate need to do so?