Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Tuesday July 29, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
Canada Region Club
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC Regional Areas > Canada Region Forum

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-04-2001, 09:00 PM   #1
Duron
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 8060
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ontario, Canada
Vehicle:
2002 WRX
Blue

Angry McDonalds stlye policing??

Just wanted to share a story and to look for a little advice.

I was on the 417 between Ottawa and montreal on the holiday weekend. It was as busy as you would expect with the holiday. I was in the outside lane, doing about 120km/h with about 6 vehicles in front, a couple behind, going past the 100km/h crowd in the inside lane.

I saw white vehicle in the distance at the side of the highway, so slowed down to be cautious, when I got closer, there was a chaotic scene. About 4 police cruisers and 3 or 4 cars all pulled over at the side of the road. I saw a police guy with what looked like a radar machine on the overpass. I thought, 'phew, thank good ness I slowed down' - Wrong!! As I got up to the cars, there were officers next to the fast lane pulling everyone over from the fast lane.

I pulled over and waited to see what was happening. The two cars in front of me stopped at the side of the road, then took off again. I waited to see what was going on. An officer motioned me to reverse back down the side of the road. 6 of them then calmly walked down all the cars they had pulled over and ticketed the lot of them for speeding.

Now was I going over a 100? Yes, probably about 120 to 110, depending on how far back you look, as I did back off when I thought I saw trouble ahead. Guess what the officer had for my speed - 137km/h!! I find the whole thing suspicous. It smells of revenue raising and quota meeting. How on heck can they get an accurate speed on a bunch of cars on a pretty busy highway? How can they make sure there are no mistakes given the chaos that was going on with 8 or 10 cars pulled over? How the heck did they get 137km/h, take it off the front car and decide the rest were going as fast?

Which takes me to my point. I don't know Canadian or Ontario laws very well. Am I wasting my time in going to court to fight this. Will the judge say I'm wasting the courts time, the police are always right and throw it out with court costs on top?

I feel pretty cheated - heck if I'm doing 140 (and you KNOW when you are going this fast on the highway) and I get pulled over - thats fine, I'm speeding, I'll take the ticket and deal with it. However, I object to this McDonalds style policing, drive up to the window and take the ticket, now move along please.

Duron
Duron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2001, 09:30 PM   #2
atroz
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 6735
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Vehicle:
2002 WRX Wagon
Silver

Default

From what I've heard, if they are using the laser based systems then they can easily pick out your car (Cops around Ottawa have them). If it's a radar based system, then I don't think it's accurate enough to pick out one car.

I don't know if they are using any sort of photo system to make sure they ID the right car.

As you guessed, they may have just taken an average or the first car and pinned you all with it. 37 over is not good, that's at least $150.

I've been fortunate and have never had to deal with this stuff. I wonder if one of those organizations like POINTTS could help you?
atroz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2001, 09:30 PM   #3
sti2_5rs
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 1578
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Vehicle:
2000 Impreza 2.5RS
Silver

Thumbs down

Sorry to hear that!!! DISPUTE the ticket, those cops cheated.
sti2_5rs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2001, 10:04 PM   #4
YJGUY
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 7956
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ottawa Ontario Canada
Vehicle:
2013 Mazda 3 GT
2007 FJ Cruiser

Default

Fight the ticket! You have nothing to lose except maybe half a day at the court house.

Write down everything you can remember right now before you forget. The officers attitude, the other cars that were stopped, the ones that were let go, what colour they were etc. This will help you out as the little details can soemthimes give you the edge when you get into court. Just think, you only got one ticket, that cop probably handed out dozens of them that day, I'm sure he won't remember every detail of your traffic stop. Ask to get a copy of his note book for that day/time frame to see if he has any notes on your incident. They are required to keep an up to date log of what they have done. Find out when the last time the radar gun was calabrated and who did it. If it wasn't done properly you might have a way out there, depending on which type of radar gun they were using. I've done enought ride alongs (300+ hours) with the Anrprior O.P.P. to know that much.

It might be worth going to one of those POINTS places to see if they can help you out. It is usually free for a consultation. I hired them once to fight a ticket for me and I ended up winning. I think it cost me $900 but it was well worth it considering my insurance would have doubled for the next 3-4 years if the ticket would have held up.

There was a really good articl in eith Road & Track or Car & Driver a fewe years back on radar guns. Lazer guns are very accurate. THeir beam was only somethiong like two and a half feet wide at 1000 yard distance. While a regular gun was something like 12 feet wide at the same distance. Can you imagine how many cars that signal could have bounced off off? I don't know where that magazine is otherwise I'd scan it and send you a copy. Maybe someone else here has a copy of it.

There was an article in todays Citizen saying the O.P.P. had handed out around 2000 tickets in the Eastern Ontario area this weekend. I'm sure a few mistakes were made.

Good luck!
Aaron.
YJGUY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2001, 10:48 PM   #5
JoeT
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 3956
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Vehicle:
2000 Turbo Legacy GT
Titanium

Default

http://www.magma.ca/%7Efyst/appndxb.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/ok/neurofeedback/speedtic.html

http://www.magma.ca/~fyst/index.htm#toc

Check out the links above. They will help you understand how Laser Radar works as well as how to fight your speeding ticket.

I hired points to fight a ticket in Alexandria, we won! From the overpass, to the traveling cars, the closer the car to the radar the greater the angle of the gun.

The accuracy of the gun greatly diminishes via each 10 degree variation from straight on. Remember, Laser Radar needs a reflective surface to bounce off from in order for a reading to happen. That is why they usually point it at the license plates. If you were behind a bunch of cars, it is almost impossible to get your plate.

You got a few things going for you.

1) All you have to do is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were not going 137 KPH.

2) The cop was on top of the bridge requiring a high angle of incidence to work from.

3) You were travelling in a pack, and they were pulling over all the cars that were suspected of speeding. (Quota time)

Just keep in mind, Laser Radar relies on the Doppler effect to get it's readings.

Just a little bit of visualization required to prove the angle of incidence reliability of LIDAR. (extreme example)

EG.

Cop standing on a bridge pointing the Lidar 90 degrees straight to the ground.

A car passes underneath the bridge

Cop click the gun and gets a clean doppler bounce.

What do you think the reading would be. Hint: Since the car was traveling perpendicular to the laser, the relative acceleration towards or away from the source would be "ZERO" resulting in a "0" KPH reading. Light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second.

Hope this helps slightly...

I hate unwarranted speeding tickets.....
JoeT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2001, 01:42 AM   #6
CanadianWRX
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 6862
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Ottawa
Vehicle:
2002 WRX
WRB

Default

I found this and thought it might be of interest. Came from one of the articles mentioned a few threads up but seems to be the most relavant to your problem

"More than one officer involved in the citation
This is a classic example of a multi-officer, maximum production speed trap operation. Usually one officer operates a radar/laser unit hidden from view. When violators are spotted, the radar/laser operator will radio other officers, usually ready in chase vehicles, to chase down the violators. The detail of implementation will vary from case to case, and will depend on the geographic feature of the surroundings. The radar/laser operator can be located anywhere, on a highway overpass, behind unmarked vehicles, behind bushes or other buildings, or even in an aircraft. A common variation is a 3-officer operation, where one operates the radar/laser, a 2nd one stands on the highway to wave over violators, and a 3rd one writes the ticket.

This kind of tickets is easier to fight, since ALL officers involved in the citation will have to come to the trial. The hearsay rule prevents one officer from testifying for all others. So if any one of them is missing, the Crown will have to withdraw the charge.

If in the event that all of them are present, then you must make a motion to exempt all witnesses from the court room. This is done when the Crown's case is opened, i.e. before the first witness takes the stand. The reason is, you don't want the officers to hear evidence from each others so as to prevent them from tailoring their testimonies. If their evidence contains discrepancies, then reasonable doubt ought to exist. This strategy also applies when one officer plus other civilian witnesses are involved. This motion will always be granted. And the prosecution is glad that not many people know this!

The radar/laser cop is first up. Pay attention to how he relay the description of the violator's vehicle to the chase officer. Then ask the chase officer how the vehicle was described to him, and how he made his decision to give chase of your vehicle. If he had lost sight of your vehicle for any length of time, ask how could he be so sure of proper identification. Also ask how the violators' speeds were communicated to the chase officer/ticket writer, and were there any logs kept? The radar/laser operator usually makes a lot of "hits" in a short time depending on traffic condition, so you want to make sure he didn't attribute somebody else's speed to you.

From your disclosure, there should be a log of the vehicles pulled over in the same speedtrap duty. If there isn't one, there is no possible way to keep track of what speed was committed by which vehicle. In the log, you should see the offence date, the location, traffic density, the time the speedtrap operation starts and the end time. There is also a list of times, vehicle descriptions and speeds. You should be able to find your vehicle in that list. Usually all the other violators will be blanked out when they made your copy, to protect the privacy of other people. But you should ask to see the original during the trial. Now turn your attention to the "traffic density" entry on the log. There is only one traffic density for the several hours they operate the speed trap? You bet. Question him on that first. Now we are on to the vehicle list. Rarely do they accurately describe the vehicle, you might see entries like "dark sedan" or "white truck" which is hardly descriptive. Question him on that if you think the cop didn't accurately describe your vehicle. Depending on how they set up the speed trap, there may not be a lot of time for the radar cop to identify the vehicle, write down the description, and radio the chase officers before the vehicle is too far past the trap. The cop is lying if he said so. Most of the time what they do is, they see a car coming, radio the chase officer, and write down the description AFTER the vehicle is pulled over. It is obviously NOT the proper way to do it but they do it all the time! If the chase officer pulled over the wrong vehicle, they would be fabricating evidence! The radar cop might further say that he never took his eyes off the vehicle (to make it sound more assuring), but the fact is, if he had done it the proper way, he would have to take his eyes off the vehicle for at least 10 seconds, to fill out the entries on the table (time, vehicle description, and speed)!

The chase officer should be up next. If the vehicle description is vague like "dark sedan" or "white truck", then question him on how could he be so sure it was the right vehicle. The chase officer might counter that if he isn't sure about the vehicle, he wouldn't have tried to pull a vehicle over. But the fact is, the log is a record of the cars that were pulled over, NOT a record of cars that were speeding! So if the log says the radar cop spotted a "dark sedan" or "white truck", the chase officer pulled over a "dark sedan" or "white truck"! Whether the chase officer pulled over the right vehicle is anyone's guess. You argument should be, it is simply not enough for the officer to pull over "a vehicle". They often don't remember anything special about your vehicle in particular, let alone all the other vehicles around you that makes him certain you are "the vehicle". Having generic descriptions like "dark sedan" only made things worse. This is your chance to exploit the Crown's weakness to its fullest. They probably got you easy with this maximum-production speedtrap, but you are going to use it to their detriment. "

Good Luck

Chris
CanadianWRX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2001, 05:11 PM   #7
Duron
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 8060
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ontario, Canada
Vehicle:
2002 WRX
Blue

Default

Thanks for all your amazing answers and advice. As a long time lurker on these boards and subbie owner its nice to see the support, escpecially on the Canadian forum.

You also all given me the determination to fight this one all the way. Heck I feel so indignant that I am even considering the use of someone like POINTTS to make sure they don't get away with this very sloppy piece of police work.

Thanks guys, I will let ya know how it goes.

Duron
Duron is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Police cars powered by McDonalds Qcanfixit Off-Topic 19 07-29-2008 11:26 AM
FS: 3" GP Moto N1 stlye Stainless Turbo back exhaust nukem2.5rs Private 'For Sale' Classifieds 40 12-13-2005 01:23 PM
"Tuner" stlye lugs with OEM wheels? eatadolfin Tire & Wheel 0 09-23-2003 04:55 PM
fast&furious stlye gc8...... scubaracer Member's Car Gallery 32 10-28-2002 12:35 PM
WTB: Older Stlye Fog Lamps BrysImpreza Vancouver Impreza Club Forum -- VIC 3 01-16-2001 07:23 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.