| shawley |
who got tickets this long weekend??
it seems like alot of people got pulled over, i know i did $120 19 over when he caught me going 30 over, |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
| I got my photo radar ticket in the mail on Friday......does that count even though the violation was weeks ago? |
|
|
| Bluestreak |
I thought I was going to get pulled over at some point.
Coming back from Lethbridge, I was going nearly 150-155 on Hwy 2 and I was one of the slower cars. :blink: |
|
|
| noriceforme |
| I didnt, but on saturday night I drove out to camrose to pick up an item for a friend and on my way their, there was two rc's pulling over people, and on my way back the same two rc's with two other cars so the 40 minutes drive took me 40 minutes :blink: better safe then sorry. |
|
|
| McFly |
| I made everyone else drive to me this weekend haha:) |
|
|
| Thegnome |
There was alot man! I saw a couple speed traps and lots of laser. Luckily due to fear I have an implanted radar detector and seem to slow down at the right times.
However I could get a letter saying other wise, you never know. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Thegnome
There was alot man! I saw a couple speed traps and lots of laser. Luckily due to fear I have an implanted radar detector and seem to slow down at the right times.
However I could get a letter saying other wise, you never know.
You should get a jammer instead. Sometimes by the time the detector goes off...............it's too late. |
|
|
| ~30oZ~ |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
You should get a jammer instead. Sometimes by the time the detector goes off...............it's too late.
how would you go about fighting that ticket? They can still "eyeball" (estimate) your speed no? what do you say to beat that in court? I wanna install a jammer in my Z32 but I don't know if it's worth the cash for the above reason.:dunno: |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by ~30oZ~
how would you go about fighting that ticket? They can still "eyeball" (estimate) your speed no? what do you say to beat that in court? I wanna install a jammer in my Z32 but I don't know if it's worth the cash for the above reason.:dunno:
As someone who used to do it, eyeballing is hard. I mean, if you're going 50 over the limit, you're screwed, but 20/25 over....that's hard to do. Not to mention if it's a stationary radar site (like in a van) the radar is constantly sending and receiving data, not only when a trigger is pulled like with the guns, in those cases, the broad beam triggers your jammer which sends out it's signal, and the device can't get an accurate speed on surrounding cars either. So now the needs to clock someone else to get a rough idea of what speed the group is doing so they can evaluate yours.
If you see 10 cars driving towards you and one passing them all on the outside, you can estimate that car is maybe 15km/h faster, but without a ballpark starting point, that number doesn't help you.
So you're right that a jammer won't get you out of every possible speeding ticket, but it'll sure help. I wouldn't go get one to save money, but if you can afford it, might as well toss it on, can't hurt. Just make sure you turn it off if you're further east than Saskatchewan, although even detectors are illegal there.
I recommend the Lidakek LE-30. It'll give a minimal error to police radar, making you seem legal. The cop will spend too much time wondering if you jammed or not to even try and figure out your speed. |
|
|
| CanuckDave |
On our way to and from SCC I only saw a Sheriff a couple cars ahead of me near Red Deer, didn't see any other enforcement out.
I was expecting there to be radar or laser considering it was a long weekend, didn't see any traps though. |
|
|
| johnboy27 |
| I wascoming home from a job on Saturday afternoon and saw 9 cop cars between Edmonton and Red Deer. They had a few cars pulled over and there were 4 RCMP travelling together going towards Edmonton. I'd watch out for the Sherriff's ,they are highway patrol now for Red Deer and it's county. |
|
|
| ~30oZ~ |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
As someone who used to do it, eyeballing is hard. I mean, if you're going 50 over the limit, you're screwed, but 20/25 over....that's hard to do. Not to mention if it's a stationary radar site (like in a van) the radar is constantly sending and receiving data, not only when a trigger is pulled like with the guns, in those cases, the broad beam triggers your jammer which sends out it's signal, and the device can't get an accurate speed on surrounding cars either. So now the needs to clock someone else to get a rough idea of what speed the group is doing so they can evaluate yours.
If you see 10 cars driving towards you and one passing them all on the outside, you can estimate that car is maybe 15km/h faster, but without a ballpark starting point, that number doesn't help you.
So you're right that a jammer won't get you out of every possible speeding ticket, but it'll sure help. I wouldn't go get one to save money, but if you can afford it, might as well toss it on, can't hurt. Just make sure you turn it off if you're further east than Saskatchewan, although even detectors are illegal there.
I recommend the Lidakek LE-30. It'll give a minimal error to police radar, making you seem legal. The cop will spend too much time wondering if you jammed or not to even try and figure out your speed.
thanks for the help! Just one more question, if you were going faster than 50kms they would pull you over but in court they would have no hard evidence to prove you were going said speed? so wouldn't they have to let you off the hook with no laser reading because you could argue you weren't going that fast? |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
The whole "greater than 50 km/hr over" is an issue of public safety. Most provinces call it "wreckless engangerment", though I realize that's a wholly different issue here in AB. The fact remains that if they can show it's likely you were acting with complete disregard for the posted limit, and operating at a speed that a reasonable purpose ought to know was unsafe (and I'd say 50km/hr over qualifies), the judge/magistrate would likely uphold it.
It's not an issue of being exact and precise. I know I've said before that laws are precise for a reason, but at the same time there's a clause in the Constitution which claims no one may bring discredit upon the legal system, or act in such a way as to undermine it.
What that means is that all branches of the legal system (legislative, executive and judicial) are obliged to act in such a way as to uphold the spirit of the law. If a man murders 28 people and there's no doubt he did, he can't be set free on a minor technicality, even though that might work for lesser crimes, because it would discredit the legal system.
In this situation, if someone is driving at a rate of speed which is excessive, thereby increasing the risk of a fatality should a collision occur to an unreasonably high chance, claiming the exact speed can't be determined and therefor it can't be upheld, would discredit the law. 45 km/hr over is "close enough" to eyeball 50 and have it upheld. Even 40. A police officer is trained to be within 5-10km/hr, so it's reasonable to assume unless you have substantial evidence that you weren't, the burden of proof would be met and you would be convicted regardless.
EDIT: To make sure things are clear....I want to clarify something.
I once had a guy say that I couldn't prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had commited a minor moving infraction of the MB Highway Traffic Act in court. I was surprised how many people actually felt that applied, and I don't mean to insult your intelligence if you're aware that's not the case...but just in case that's what you're thinking, it's not.
For non-criminal matters, there is no "reasonable doubt", it's "burden of proof". The difference being if the prosecution show that there's a 51% chance you are guilty, but there's a 49% chance of doubt, they've met the burden of proof. It's more likely you broke the law than didn't. This is the same way a civil case would work, like if there was a lawsuit. But 51% is hardly "beyond a reasonable doubt".
The logic is that it's nearly impossible to prove many minor violations are "beyond a reasonable doubt", and because they're minor, the odd wrongful conviction isn't that big a deal. It won't discredit the legal system.
Sending innocent people to jail for several years, however, would bring a GREAT discredit on the legal system. As much as people despise the law when they're on the wrong side of it, it's designed to protect the average citizen in all respects. Protect them from murder, being wrongfully detained, being taken advantage of, being stolen from, being sent to jail unfairly, and everything else. The idea is to do the most good in all situations and minimize collateral damage to people and the reputation of the courts. |
|
|
| ~30oZ~ |
| thanks for all the info! :) |
|
|
| Godzilla |
quote:
Originally posted by CanuckDave
On our way to and from SCC I only saw a Sheriff a couple cars ahead of me near Red Deer, didn't see any other enforcement out.
don't remember seeing them ones, probably relied on my cobra too much (POS) |
|
|
| midnite |
| thanks for the information dtjohnst |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
| You're welcome...both of oyu. |
|
|
| 180sxforthewin |
quote:
Originally posted by shawley
who got tickets this long weekend??
it seems like alot of people got pulled over, i know i did $120 19 over when he caught me going 30 over,
HUH
When I got mine it was 36 over for 220 wtf. |
|
|
|
