Re: Truly Was Not Speeding
The problem I see for you is that you can't take the stand without purjuring yourself as you've said you were speeding (just not by as much as the ticket). Your entire case therefore rests on throwing enough reasonable doubt on the officers testimony by focusing on the fact that he caught you 80m from the intersection when he was 40m from the intersection. These are just estimates because he certainly didn't measure them. Could it have been 120m and 80m ? Maybe. Perhaps it could even have been 160m and 120m. I see it going this way: crown introduces the officer's radar evidence, you cross and bring in the acceleration/vehicle power argument showing that the 80m/40m is unlikely, then crown gets to go again and asks the officer if it could have been further. Officer says yes and judge accepts that.
It seems that you think the officer is going to lie in his testimony and to prove that and have a justice basically state that the court does not believe an officer you are going to need a heck of a lot more than what you have.
I admire your tenacity but I have seen many people come to court with all sorts of arguments but it all boils down to 'were you speeding' and I haven't read anything that leads me to believe that you can show enough reasonable doubt.
As I said, it's going to be interesting and please keep us posted.