Speeding ticket even though the PO said he didn't catch me speeding?

[cs_729]

Long story short...

I was driving down the road. IMO i was NOT speeding and told the officer that. He was at a stop sign and saw me pass him. There was a red light up ahead and I was in the midst of slowing down for that light anyways. He came up to my vehicle and said "I know you were speeding before, but you're just lucky I didn't catch you on radar or your car will be impounded"

I told him that I didn't think I was speeding at all (which I honestly believe), yet gives me a ticket for "Speed in a municipality". What are my chances of disputing this ticket given that he told me point blank that he didn't catch me speeding but just 'thought' I was speeding before?

[inv4zn]

I'm sure the police officers on this board will chime in, but I'm pretty sure the officer needs to show you a radar reading that clocks you going over the speed limit?

[vafanculo]

Were you speeding? He's got no proof (unless probable cause is a proof?) but, if he saw you going from 60..50..40 kph, I'd like to ask you, are you disputing that you were not speeding, or that he doesn't have proof of you speeding?
Posted via RS Mobile

[MindBomber]

Originally Posted by cs_729

Long story short...

I was driving down the road. IMO i was NOT speeding and told the officer that. He was at a stop sign and saw me pass him. There was a red light up ahead and I was in the midst of slowing down for that light anyways. He came up to my vehicle and said "I know you were speeding before, but you're just lucky I didn't catch you on radar or your car will be impounded"

I told him that I didn't think I was speeding at all (which I honestly believe), yet gives me a ticket for "Speed in a municipality". What are my chances of disputing this ticket given that he told me point blank that he didn't catch me speeding but just 'thought' I was speeding before?

You'll have no success disputing the ticket, unless you're able to offer more compelling evidence in court than you have here.

The officer did not say, he "didn't catch [you] speeding but just 'thought' [you were] speeding." The officer said, he does not have radar evidence of you speeding. The officer visually estimated your speed, and taking a margin of error into consideration, issued a less serious VT than he would have with radar or laser evidence.

Originally Posted by inv4zn

I'm sure the police officers on this board will chime in, but I'm pretty sure the officer needs to show you a radar reading that clocks you going over the speed limit?

Originally Posted by vafanculo

Were you speeding? He's got no proof (unless probable cause is a proof?) but, if he saw you going from 60..50..40 kph, I'd like to ask you, are you disputing that you were not speeding, or that he doesn't have proof of you speeding?
Posted via RS Mobile

Radar or laser evidence are not required to issue a VT, the testimony of a police officer or a citizen who can demonstrate experience in assessing speed visually is sufficient evidence (or proof).

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by MindBomber

You'll have no success disputing the ticket, unless you're able to offer more compelling evidence in court than you have here.

The officer did not say, he "didn't catch [you] speeding but just 'thought' [you were] speeding." The officer said, he does not have radar evidence of you speeding. The officer visually estimated your speed, and taking a margin of error into consideration, issued a less serious VT than he would have with radar or laser evidence.


Radar or laser evidence are not required to issue a VT, the testimony of a police officer or a citizen who can demonstrate experience in assessing speed visually is sufficient evidence (or proof).

Dispute the ticket, you have a good chance of winning. While it is true that courts can convict based on a visual speed estimation alone, there is sufficient reasonable doubt here because the credibility of a visual speed estimation depends on a very narrow set of circumstances. If the officer was driving his patrol car, it will be difficult for him to visually estimate your speed while he is in a moving vehicle because of the speed differential between the two vehicles.

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by inv4zn

I'm sure the police officers on this board will chime in, but I'm pretty sure the officer needs to show you a radar reading that clocks you going over the speed limit?

Not true. No requirement to show any readings at roadside. The issuing member will have to present enough evidence in court to prove that you comitted the offence charged - speeding, at the date and time indicated on the VT. If he doesn't convince the JP then you get off...if he does then you will be convicted.

Your quote indicates that he estimated your speed as being at least 40 kms over the limit (the impound statement) but he only charged you with doing more than 1 kmh over the limit. You would have to ask yourself how he could arrive at that conclusion?

[inv4zn]

^Was the latter part of your post directed at me? lol

[sho_bc]

Originally Posted by Marco911

If the officer was driving his patrol car, it will be difficult for him to visually estimate your speed while he is in a moving vehicle because of the speed differential between the two vehicles.

Not true. Part of visual speed estimation is in-car, while in motion. So long as you know your own vehicle speed, you can easily visually estimate the speed of an on-coming or passing vehicle.
Posted via RS Mobile

[inv4zn]

I really don't want to sound like seberry, but is a visual estimate enough evidence for one to be ticketed?

I have every confidence in an officer's experience and ability to do so accurately, but the concept seems a bit awry.

Also, if one can challenge the calibration of a radar and use that as a basis for dispute, isn't an officer's visual estimate even more open to challenge?

[cs_729]

Originally Posted by zulutango

Not true. No requirement to show any readings at roadside. The issuing member will have to present enough evidence in court to prove that you comitted the offence charged - speeding, at the date and time indicated on the VT. If he doesn't convince the JP then you get off...if he does then you will be convicted.

Your quote indicates that he estimated your speed as being at least 40 kms over the limit (the impound statement) but he only charged you with doing more than 1 kmh over the limit. You would have to ask yourself how he could arrive at that conclusion?

Thanks for the help with this matter. There was a stop sign which he was at and waiting to turn right onto W 16th. 2 blocks ahead was a red light which I was slowing down for. He was behind me for 2 blocks all while I was slowing down for a red light, so by the time he got behind me I was going 35-40 km/h while slowing down. He must of thought I was speeding while I passed him as he was waiting for an opening to turn right onto 16th ave.

It was really weird when he said that he knew I was speeding but didn't catch me on radar.. I just don't know how he can just assume I was speeding? I plan on disputing this ticket and I just can't seem to grasp how he thought I was speeding. If he trailed me for a while and speed matched me, then yes, I can understand the charge. But for me to pass him while he's at a stop sign and just say that I was speeding had be questioning like a LOT.

[zulutango]

So he was watching you travel towards him and then he followed 2 blocks to you to the stop sign? He would have to be able to convince the court that you were going at least 1km over the posted 50??/K limit. If he is trained as a Laser/Radar operator then speed estimation is part of that training to verify any displayed reading is a valid one.

To not get convicted the JP will have to be convinced that the crown's evidence does not meet that standard...and your part would be to raise enough doubt in the testimony that the former does not happen. BTW...my speed estimations were accurate to within plus/minus 5 kmh when viewed from any direction. Sometimes I could estimate to within 1 kmh either side. Not sure how his/hers are?

[sho_bc]

So you were slowing down well before being 2 blocks away from a red light and were travelling at approximately 40km/hr, still 2 blocks away? 35-40km/hr is pretty slow when you're that far away. Is this because you saw the police car waiting to turn out?
Posted via RS Mobile

[sho_bc]

Originally Posted by zulutango

BTW...my speed estimations were accurate to within plus/minus 5 kmh when viewed from any direction. Sometimes I could estimate to within 1 kmh either side. Not sure how his/hers are?

I was +/- 7km/hr, but always gave +/- 10km/hr to the benefit of the doubt to the offender as much possible. That, and the math is easier.
Posted via RS Mobile

[cs_729]

Originally Posted by sho_bc

So you were slowing down well before being 2 blocks away from a red light and were travelling at approximately 40km/hr, still 2 blocks away? 35-40km/hr is pretty slow when you're that far away. Is this because you saw the police car waiting to turn out?
Posted via RS Mobile

No I did not see the officer until he pulled me over which was just over half a block before the red light. I really was just very confused with the whole scenario and how he can justify that I was speeding when I clearly was not?

Thanks for all your input everyone, I am still going to go ahead and dispute this ticket. Normally I would own up when I am in the wrong but I just can't see how he thinks I was speeding...

[zulutango]

"I am still going to go ahead and dispute this ticket. Normally I would own up when I am in the wrong but I just can't see how he thinks I was speeding..."


Gotta love RS. Some people would say that the principle here would be that you were definitely 1000% NOT speeding....not that you can't see how the Cop caught you.

[Jobo]

exactly the same thing happened to me about 2 months ago. I was going up royal oak and had down shifted to climb the hill. Honestly I was going the speed of trafficAn rcmp officer was heading down the hill and heard me (straight pipe exhaust).
He pulled a uturn and sped up to me to pull me over.
Thing is that he had absolutely no proof. He based it off of what he heard and the fact that there were cars in front made it impossible for me to go any faster.

I went to dispute the ticket about a week or two later only to find out the officer had canceled the ticket
Posted via RS Mobile

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by cs_729

No I did not see the officer until he pulled me over which was just over half a block before the red light. I really was just very confused with the whole scenario and how he can justify that I was speeding when I clearly was not?

Thanks for all your input everyone, I am still going to go ahead and dispute this ticket. Normally I would own up when I am in the wrong but I just can't see how he thinks I was speeding...

So you you are saying you were going 50 kph, and NOT EVEN ONE km over that? If you can prove that, then go ahead and take it to court. I think it has already been posted by others with respect to PO's being trained to visually estimate the speed at which a car is travelling.. Again, as mentioned earlier, the fact that the officer stated that you should have been impounded, makes me believe that he visually estimated you going 40km over the speed limit, which is fast. Consider yourself lucky. Go ahead and dispute it. You will soon realize that disputing a speeding ticket is probably the hardest traffic violations to dispute.

Originally Posted by Ferio_EG

exactly the same thing happened to me about 2 months ago. I was going up royal oak and had down shifted to climb the hill. Honestly I was going the speed of trafficAn rcmp officer was heading down the hill and heard me (straight pipe exhaust).
He pulled a uturn and sped up to me to pull me over.
Thing is that he had absolutely no proof. He based it off of what he heard and the fact that there were cars in front made it impossible for me to go any faster.

I went to dispute the ticket about a week or two later only to find out the officer had canceled the ticket
Posted via RS Mobile

Going with the speed of traffic isn't an excuse. I don't know why people think it is. If you saw other cars run through a red light, would you?

[gdoh]

do any points go along with this ticket? how much was the ticket?

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by gdoh

do any points go along with this ticket? how much was the ticket?

http://www.revscene.net/forums/13810...-do-i-get.html

[gdoh]

My bad, I don't come into this forum only when its posted on the front page

[BallPeenHammer2]

I have been issued a ticket when I wasn't speeding. It was in the middle of the night in Richmond a few years back. I was about 4 blocks from my old place, heading home around 2AM.

I was going 55 in a 60 zone at the time (Was talking on the phone, lol).
That was a pretty easy dispute.

[jackal]

estimating speeds needs to be abolished. a few weeks back i was heading home on lougheed at 4am. i always speed during my commute home. i was just east of brentwood as you crest the small hill and the speed limit climbs to 70. i spotted the officer right away and stayed at 75. once i was almost at holdom station (probably 4-500 meters past the officer) i went back to my normal speed of ~90. the officer ended up pulling me over at the royal bank at bainbridge and accused me of going "well over 120" i basically had to laugh and made it clear i knew that doing 40 over would get me and excessive speeding ticket and that i would never be stupid enough to do that. then he let me go. never even asked for my license...

it's WAY to easy to make mistakes when estimating speeds.

as for op's case. assuming his side of the story is true. i would dispute that ticket all day long.

[jackal]

Originally Posted by BlueG2

Going with the speed of traffic isn't an excuse. I don't know why people think it is. If you saw other cars run through a red light, would you?

this is such a stupid comparison... going with the flow of traffic, especially on a freeway is almost undoubtedly safer then doing what is sometime 20-30 km/h slower then everyone around you.

running a red means putting yourself into the path of oncoming traffic that also has the right of way.

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by jackal

this is such a stupid comparison... going with the flow of traffic, especially on a freeway is almost undoubtedly safer then doing what is sometime 20-30 km/h slower then everyone around you.

running a red means putting yourself into the path of oncoming traffic that also has the right of way.

If both you and the traffic on the side street you are entering both have the right of way, then there is a major problem. Only one way at a time has the right of way. Only way 2 cars fit into the same available space is if they are either stacked on top or squashed into each other. Red light means stop. There is no legal way to run a red. BTW, I know i'm just being picky about how you said what you said.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by BallPeenHammer2

I was going 55 in a 60 zone at the time (Was talking on the phone, lol).
That was a pretty easy dispute.

"I couldn't have been speeding, your honour - I was on the phone!"
"Case dismissed!"

Imma try that the next time I get a speeding ticket