“Visual Estimation Of Speed From The Side, Inaccurate?”

I got a Failing to Stop 136 (1)(A) ticket, in the officer's notes it says I "slowed to Approx 30km/h."

In fact, I did stop as the officer's view was obstructed by another vehicle adjacent to him. Also he was perpendicular to me, I was driving Southbound and he was driving Eastbound at the intersection. From my research, when speed is visual estimated from the side, is not very accurate.

Are there are any court cases, scientific research that say that visual estimation of speed from the side is inaccurate or laws that say just using visual estimation of one's speed is inadmissible?

Thanks

I've had lots of success with this...giving a side view speed estimate is a little harder to be accurate to within 5 km/h let's say, but there's a huge difference between 0 and 30 km/h.

Was he watching your wheels under the other vehicle's?

Was there noticeable acceleration / deceleration viewed by the officer?

I'm thinking the officer won't have any problem getting his / her point across in court.

FyreStorm wrote:I've had lots of success with this...giving a side view speed estimate is a little harder to be accurate to within 5 km/h let's say, but there's a huge difference between 0 and 30 km/h.

Was he watching your wheels under the other vehicle's?

Was there noticeable acceleration / deceleration viewed by the officer?

I'm thinking the officer won't have any problem getting his / her point across in court.

FyreStorm, when you say "I've had lots of success with this" do you mean as a cop or prosecutor or defendant or paralegal? I am sorry I do not know your profession.

Was he watching your wheels under the other vehicle's?

Was there noticeable acceleration / deceleration viewed by the officer?

I do not know, as nothing of this sort is in the disclosure. Even after constant attempt on my part to get more disclosure.

I'm neither a prosecutor or a paralegal....

FyreStorm wrote:I'm neither a prosecutor or a paralegal....

That leaves cop or defendant, my bet cop. Am I right?

I'm not a defendant... **GRIN**

FyreStorm wrote:I'm not a defendant... **GRIN**

Thank you officer.

FyreStorm wrote:

I'm not a defendant... **GRIN**

Thank you officer.

Oh, he's gonna love that badge stroke, hahahaha. j/k

Marquisse wrote:

FyreStorm wrote:

I'm not a defendant... **GRIN**

Thank you officer.

Oh, he's gonna love that badge stroke, hahahaha. j/k

hahaha.

Back to my original question, anyone?

Thanks

In this case the speed means jack. You will have to prove that the officer's vision of your wheels was obscured by another car when you came to a full and complete stop.

Reflections wrote:In this case the speed means jack. You will have to prove that the officer's vision of your wheels was obscured by another car when you came to a full and complete stop.

I understand what you are saying.

But, any way to prove that 30km/hr is not an accurate estimation, as 30kh/hr sounds alot and I just want to create doubt that the estimation is wrong.

Thanks

30KM/H through a controlled intersection would be grounds for dangerous driving, IMHO.

Wheels are not the end all either....one can see another car drive by another

Reflections wrote:30KM/H through a controlled intersection would be grounds for dangerous driving, IMHO.

Actually, can I use this in my defense. Arguing that if I did drive at 30kh/hr through a controlled intersection would be grounds for dangerous driving and the officer should have also given me a ticket for dangerous driving, which he did not, therefore I was traveling slower than 30km/hr?

Dangerous Driving is not a ticket