Honest tips needed for radar dispute.
 

Hey RS,

I was recently given an excessive speeding ticket. I was monitoring my speed and I know that the officer got the speed wrong or was trying to give me a hard time.

The zone was 60 and I was going 85 (highway). Its not common for people to drive 80-90 and I just happened to be in the right most lane. The reason I know I was going 85 is because I drive a standard, monitor my RPM's and gearing, so I know when it is time to shift up. If I was going anywhere near what he said I was doing then my car would be close to redlining.

The first thing he said to me was 'You were going over 100' and asked me for my information. I was polite and didn't want to disagree with him due to the tone of his voice, and unfortunately some officers personality can affect their work ethics. He ended up bringing a tow truck and dismissing me in the middle of nowhere with no heads-up of a tow truck being called. I was waiting for about 35 minutes until I saw the tow truck.

I have to wait a week to get my vehicle back (which is a new law passed last September 2010) and then suffer a fine excluding an ICBC premium. I know that I can not fight the weekly impoundments since stolen vehicles excessively speeding would most likely be withheld from their owners.
I spoke with the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and that is exactly what they told me; There is absolutely no exceptions.

I have a clean driving record since I got my class 5 and have always followed rules. I was simply matching the speed of traffic (which is sort of an unspoken rule that seems to govern Vancouver sometimes) and was in complete control and driving absolutely safely.

I do not really want to get into the argument of my speed since I do understand driving 85 in a school zone is extremely dangerous and irresponsible, but driving 85 in an area that is practically highway with everyone else driving in unison seems fairly standard. Even Constables will drive 70 in 50 zones with their sirens off.

If I was given a normal speeding ticket (85 in a 60 zone) I would pay it honestly and let the officer know I will avoid matching traffic speed for the sake of flow and will follow the law's of the road.

Back on topic.

I am wondering how I can argue a radar violation. Although having a witness would be my best bet, as of this moment it is my word against his, and he has more proof than me (radar).

I am currently taking physics at university and am very familiar with optics, I do not know how to politely tell the JP that either the radar is faulty (and needs re-calibration), or the officer is profiling me (for whatever his reasons may be).

I understand I can hire a lawyer or consult legal aid, but this is my first step. I am not in danger of losing my license, but am having extreme financial hardship. I am a student in debt living on my own and driving is an extreme privilege. I have been in three motor vehicles accidents in the last three months (none were my fault, the other parties were liable for all three - I know, bad luck) and I am extremely in debt. I have to wait at least a year for any reimbursements and have been failing school due to missed exams and complications... This is the last thing I need right now.

Any tips are greatly appreciated!


Please avoid bias, thank you for reading!

You would have to convince the JP that the speed reading could have possibly come from a different vehicle travelling near you etc, or somehow convey a situation that creates a reasonable doubt in the accuracy of the officer's testimony.

.

I am wondering how I can argue a radar violation. Although having a witness would be my best bet, as of this moment it is my word against his, and he has more proof than me (radar).


Plus his visual estimation of your speed that was confirmed by the doppler audio shift and the speeds your car registered on his calibrated radar set.

I am currently taking physics at university and am very familiar with optics,


Then your physics course should tell you the difference between light and sound. Laser uses light to measure speed, Radar (the R stands for RADIO) uses compression of radio waves. You may tell the JP that but you would have to be able to convince him that the Police testimony of how the unit was checked before and after use and was found to be functioning properly and capable of accurately displaying speeds of targeted vehicles, was better than your suggestion or other evidence.


I do not know how to politely tell the JP that either the radar is faulty (and needs re-calibration),

How do you know that? He just testifed that it was not. Convince the JP and you win

or the officer is profiling me (for whatever his reasons may be).

So you are saying that his entire testimony is false and he just volunteered for a career ending case of perjury...all to convict someone of a speeding ticket? Are you playing the race card or are you saying the Cop chose perjury over truthful sword testimony because he hates 'Tegs?

"sebteggy"?? Why do I have the feeling that this is a troll post to set sebberry up another one of his rants?

I mean... I'm just sayin'...

^ LOL! when I saw the title I though I read the username as Sedberry and thought "oh the irony"

The mods are more than welcome to do an IP check. It ain't me.

But this is a classic example of why the immediate roadside impoundments are un-just. If you so firmly believe in the 7 day impoundments then perhaps that should come after the accused speeder has had his day in court.

A bit more information please: what speed did the officer say that you were traveling and how do you know that he used radar to measure your speed?

skidmark, I know you're just trying to help, but he's already lost his car for a week with zero chance of getting it back. There's no sense in going any further with this. ;)

As it says up there, the officer said 'you were going over 100', is the first thing he told me. The ticket says 110.

He had a constable beside him also pulling people over and I clearly saw him using his radar gun on oncoming traffic.

Any other tips? Thanks Zulutango, although what you said sounds pretty self explanatory, its good to hear since I didn't know some of it.

I suspect that they were using laser, not radar, and you really have to be negligent to get an incorrect reading for a vehicle.

Where did they write 110 km/h on the ticket?

That depends on your point of view. You may have lost the vehicle, but it if was impounded improperly you can be reimbursed for it.

I'd be more concerned with the loss of use of my car, especially if there was an error in the speed reading.

And when it does happen you have no recourse. Your car is gone on the spot.

Yes, that's so. One byproduct of following the speed limit is that you shouldn't have to worry about being impounded.

Not sure If this applies in BC but in WA you can file for discovery or history of the radar used. They have to provide the entire history of the radar in question; when and how it was calibrated, etc etc.
It's your only chance to prove the device is faulty. If the device had not been reset properly you can argue it is unreliable.
There are free legal aids that can help with this case.
Google magic, my friend.
Posted via RS Mobile

The history of the Radar unit will only show when it was last calaibrated by the manufacturer...it will not show you if it was functioning correctly at the time you were stopped. IF the unit malfunctions THEN it is sent away for repairs. IF it is malfunctioning you cannot use it for accurate readings so you won't be using it in the first place. All the repair/calibration history will show is that the unit was likely functioning correctly when used, NOT the opposite. When you call a plumber because a tap is leaking and he replaces the washers, the tap is no longer leaking. His visit goes to prove that. Same with the Radar.

Google may be magic but your advice is useless and misleading in this case. Free advice is usually worth what you pay for it, specially from websites selling you their products or advice.

I've been pulled over on laser, when it was lightly snowing, for "driving 75km in a 50 zone" on hastings by PNE.

It was a pretty BS ticket because I was going about 50km (FWD, snow tyres. Cna't go any faster than that.)

Considering the guy had about 5 cars on teh side of the road already.

Gave me a bunch of shit, causing me a huge amount of aggravation.



Then called me last week to tell me his gun was wrong. Didn't even apologize though. pfft.

Again. I was speaking about how ita done in WA and maybe its the same thing here. I informed the op that in the beginning of my post. by google magic I meant you can google similar cases that happened in BC and see how they were dealt with.
Posted via RS Mobile

You could request disclosure in BC trafic court but even if you did, as I statetd, requesting the repair history would only support the Crown's case, not yours, ergo the advice you suggested would not help the OP here.

As far as googling BC cases for help, that is too wide a statement to give specific comment. OP may find something or he may not and you would need identical circumstances in both cases. It's not likely that you would find enough detailed information unless it was a supreme court trial transcript and then the locations and traffic conditions and all other circumstances would also have to be identical. You might get some sort of general information but you need to know how to apply it to the OP's case so it is legal, valid and applied properly.

I thought you were more concerned with finding things to complain about?

Impossible. The gun could never be out. How would they able to impound cars on the spot with faulty equipment?

couldn't the OP use that as evidence in court? if buddy man would give him the VT #.

and couldn't ballpeenhammer2 sue the police for wrongful whatever?

Just imagine - you lose your car for a week and the officer calls you up just after you get it back to tell you the gun was faulty and the case is being dropped. How do you get back your week without your car? Unless you have invented time travel, you can't.

sue the hell outta the police force? damages/suffering etc etc?

That could be said about people who are arrested for a crime they never committed. Mistakes happen. You can go to court later for compensation. Unfortunately - that's how life goes.