Unfortunately in your case, that is where a fine for having an Insecure Load would come into play. :\

Motor Vehicle Act Regulations
Operating vehicles with insecure cargo prohibited
35.08 (1) If a peace officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a vehicle carrying cargo is unsafe for use on a highway because of the method of cargo securement, the peace officer may order the driver of the vehicle to stop the vehicle and secure the cargo before proceeding.

(2) A person must comply with an order given under subsection (1).


If that cargo is that much of a risk that you're not able to brake as quickly as you should be able to (notwithstanding the cargo), it could be considered insecure enough for this section to come into play.

Oh where oh where did common sense go...

What about people who say "It wasn't safe to stop because my tires are bald and my brakes dont work very well, so I went through the yellow/red"

Somehow I get the feeling that section is intended more to apply to EXTERNAL loads - logs, bricks, ladders, etc. that you don't want flying off and landing on other cars. I'm sure it could be STRETCHED to apply to, say, a few boxes of equipment inside a van, but that would be a stretch indeed.

The point remains, "blowing a yellow" tends to be a subjective call, and it's a no-win for the driver, because any LEGITIMATE reason a driver might come up with why he didn't feel it safe to stop, seems to have a law a cop can come up with to counter it.

As a driver, I know the capabilities of my car, and of my driving. The cop watching me from the other direction doesn't. I may have a perfectly mechanically sound car and be driving at or below the speed limit in perfect conditions, and still not feel like hammering on the brakes is SAFE for me to do.

It sounds like you are using your knowledge (and the officer's lack of knowledge) of your skills and car as an excuse to not act according to the law.

Now apply the same thinking to speeding.

The problem I see with this type of estimation as the sole "evidence" in a court hearing is that there is still a level of inconsistancy in the officer's accuracy.

Sure that under optimal condtions (the officer is well rested, not stressed, no personal issues) your avg maybe within 4-5km, but what if the officer is having a bad day. Police officer are humans too, and their performance and ability to correctly estimate the speed may be affected by personal things. Such as lack of sleep (maybe officer's kids were sick the night before), fatigue (maybe it was the last 2 hour of the officer's shift, and it was just one of those extra stressful days) and many other personal things can affect the officer's accuracy in their judgement.

That's why I don't agree with using this sort of visual speed estimation as the only evidance.
Posted via RS Mobile

So your'e saying that an experienced trained mechanic who has a

"lack of sleep (maybe his kids were sick the night before), fatigue (maybe it was the last 2 hour of the mechanic's shift, and it was just one of those extra stressful days) and many other personal things can affect the accuracy"

Can't rell if a carb is out of synch by listening, that a body man can't tell if a panel is a fraction out of line, that a carpenter would think that a 2x4 is a 2x6 by sight? You would not be issued a speeding ticket for going 1 kmh over the limit, by visual estimation alone and the JP would laugh any Cop out of court if he tried. If the same Cop said that he estimated your speed to be 20k over the limit but charged you for going more than 1 kmh over the limit then that would be reasonable and accepted. You may not agree but legal precedent of those circumstances has been set and accepted many thousands of times in BC traffic courts.

You'll notice in my previous post, I used the term "LEGITIMATE" (emphasis included). As in, a driver may LEGITIMATELY not feel he's able to stop safely before the yellow.

Not relevant. You have a device in your car that tells you the speed you're going (with an acceptable margin of error); as a driver, you have excuse for not knowing whether you're over the limit or not. It's not SUBJECTIVE.

As Sho_bc mentioned, during his training, he avg around +/- 4km, but was off by as much as 11km. But during training, he would still be at closer to optimal condition. So if he were to have a "bad day", for any of the reason I lised previously, it wouldn't be hard for that 11km descrpency to turn into a 21km descrepency. And now we are getting into a situation where the inconsistancy level causes doubt in the case of a trial.

I understand there are precedent set for convictions using only visual speed estimation, but I wonder how many of these are for simple violation disputes, vs larger accident causing court cases....all I'm saying is that if the accused had a lawyer, it will be much harder to make a conviction based on just visual speed estimation.
Posted via RS Mobile

Your estimation skills during training, like in any new skill you are getting, will not be better during training but will become better after training and lots and lots of hands on daily use. There are reasons you may be off at times in an estimation but it has nothing to do with what you suggest. Estimation is part of every Radar/Laser ticket issued and the actual instrument readout is used to confirm the speeds shown, not the other way around. It's part of a tracking history. If a trained, qualified and experienced Radar/Laser user is 21 kmh off then they need more training before using the instruments. As Sho said, he realized he was out 11kmh, he didn't say that he was not aware that the estimation was out 11kmh nor that he used the estimation to ticket someone.

As far as your second paragraph goes...there is no way of obtaining that statistic but in 28 years of traffic court I can say in all the cases I observed not one was for an accident that resulted in a crash. If you are using speed as a causal crash factor then you do your speed calculations from skidmarks,yaw marks, crush depths and that sort of thing and would never use a visual estimation to prove speed when better evidence was available.

As far as a speeder using a lawyer to make it easier to get off a speeding charge based on visual estimation, that would depend on the lawyer's skill and training and the crown's evidence. Just because you have a lawyer in traffic court does not mean the Cops crumble and drop the charge. I have run up against very few lawyers who were familiar with traffic law and were able to know what to do to try to trip up an experienced traffic member...and that goes for defence and crown lawyers. I just spent 2 days testifying in supreme court as an expert witness/consultant and had 2 lawyers picking my testimony apart. Their law training was hugely superior to mine but I ended up proving my testimony because of my traffic and other related skills. Articulation.

And who's to say I wasn't having an "off" day during my training? ;) Nothing like spending your days off back at work.

Visual estimations have no physical evidence. If a driver is to be caught with just that, then that driver will have to spend their own time proving innocence. At no reimbursement whatsoever.

I'm in the car industry, Zulu, and I found your comment both ignorant and insulting.

We DON'T ESTIMATE how a car sounds, or what measurements to EYEBALL when making an adjustment/modification.

Everything is DIGITALLY RECORDED in a car's system. Everything has its own logs, and a tech MUST log down EVERYTHING he does and test them.

So please do not just stick in random examples that have little or no relations to present day situations.

Carpenters and bodymen (I've been in those businesses when I was young) also have to keep logs, and make sure the final product is tested and sound. If they have an off day, and something screws up, then the product would then be able to be repaired or replaced for free, at no cost to the consumer.

It's called ACCOUNTABILITY.

Watching somebody fail to stop at a stop sign has no physical evidence either, just the observations of the police officer.

But it's also not "estimation".

Depending on the circumstances, estimations of speed and distance do have to be entered as evidence.

If there is not "a complete cessation for forward movement" at a stop sign VT in court the JP wants to hear speed estimations and they also want to hear how far past the line the vehicle went while it "slowed down' or sometimes stopped because they were forced to yield to oncoming traffic while blowing the sign. SHO is correct.