Last year I was tagged on the 2nd Narrows for "excessive" speed. I am certain I was not going over 100km/h in a 70km/h zone. I don't have a problem getting a speeding ticket but the officer admitted that he didn't radar me - he maintains that in morning rush hour traffic he did manage to keep me clearly in sight for long enough for him to accelerate to 110km/h and then see me still pulling away.
He then slowed down and kept me in sight until he could pull me over.
I requested and received some information (and some he just ignored) but here is what I have:
His notes on the incident (just received typed information, not actual copies -forgive the poor language - his not mine - guess you don't need to be good at grammar or spelling to be an officer or perhaps the typist really needs some remedial language - I think that's more likely)
Estimate of speed was made by the use of the vehicle but the actual speed of my police vehicle was obtained by the use of moving radar. The system in use was a stalker moving mode radar system and was checked before and after these events by approved manufactures methods.
The vehicle ,2005 Chevrolet with Approximately 8000km., was a brand new car and had not had any changes to speed meter or tires.
That's part 1. This happened in late summer 2008...so a "new" 2005 Chevy only had 8000kms on it? What? This is a ghost car - probably excessively driven daily....how is this possible? Also the use of "moving radar" simply means that the unit is wired to the vehicles speed sensor which means that it has the same 10%+/- error rate as the vehicle speedometer. Also is it reasonable to not see his notes as written from the incident? Doesn't this allow him to just fill in whatever blanks he wants to? I requested a copy of his notes from the incident - this doesn't really cut it.
The RCMP has no courses on speed estimation, however, since I have used speed measurement equipment since 1980 on a daily basis I have found myself to have an error factor of +/- 5km per hour by testing myself against these limits. My training included radar (3 styles), laser and aircraft enforcement.
That's part 2. So now we have a total error rate of +/-10% and +/-5km - admitted - when likely it varies depending on the speeds involved and is probably more significant.
The radar unit that was used was brand new, and had not been services prior to these events.
That's part 3. It was not "services" but it was calibrated. Well that's possible. Define new though. We have a "new" 4 year old car with no servicing done and 8000km. We also have a "new" radar unit. I am a little confused.
The next part is a detailed explanation of the clocking:
On the day in question, Friday, August 8, 2008, at approximately 0744 hours Mr. Xs vehicle was first seen in the middle lane of the 2nd narrows. The police car (unmarked) was behind his vehicle and watched as Mr. Xs vehicle changed to the fast lane and accelerated. The posted speed limit on the 2nd narrows is 70km/h. Officer Y upon seeing this attempted a clock but when Officer Y got up to 110km/h in the 70 zone and saw the X vehicle was still pulling away it was felt that there was no need for further clocking. At this point the estimated speed of Mr.Xs vehicle was 115km/hr. This attempt to clock took place over a 300m distance near center span. The X vehicle then cut to the slow lane for the ramp. Officer Y kept the vehicle in sight during this period and subsequently stopped the vehicle.
This looks pretty solid. Still it seems a little unlikely in traffic with other vehicles (including trucks) obstructing vision.
He also included a "21 year driving abstract". I have 3 tickets in 5 years and 6 in my first year (over 20 years ago). It shows I was a bad kid but 3 tickets in 5 years isn't that excessive - none of the recent ones were more than speeding. I wonder if that is really going to matter.