“68 Kmh In A 50 - Reduced - Pacing - Too Much Doubds”

Hi Forum,

First post here and First ticket as well.

Long story - short.

Was cruising back home from work with my wife in Aurora, ON via Younge street around 3a.m. It's my every day road to home so I know it as my 10 fingers with all the 50 & 60 sights. Was traveling on about 55-57kmh (complete empty road) when I saw, that in about 3-4 blocks from my behind a car which was approaching way faster than me and the same time I passed a 60 sight and accelerated to 62-65kmh. After 100-150 meters when I once again looked in a rear view mirror I still saw that car approaching me way faster than 65kmh, I decided to share the road to avoid slowing down the "fast guy" and took the right lane. As soon as I changed the lane the LIGHTS turned on and I realized that it was an undercover police cruiser, pulled over - ok. I was sure that 5kmh over couldn't cause, such pursuit so I was a bit afraid what is the reason of pulling me over.

Lady Officer came to me and told that I was going 75kmh(!!!) in 50 zone and she had to do 85kmh to catch me! which is completely wrong. I explained that it couldn't be so that maximum what I could be doing is 68kmh and it considering that I accelerated when I entered a 60 zone. She replied that I was doing 85kmh to catch you. I asked her if I can see radar or something which can show the record of my speed, but officer replied, that she was pacing me, so I gave to officer my papers and in 2-3 minutes she issued me with Speeding Ticket "68 in 50 zone" I asked once again how did she determine my speed, officer replied: "I had to do 85kmh to catch you (not following), it means that you where doing minimum 75kmh, so I paced you. You'll see everything in my notes"

$45.00 (total: $60.00) Ticket issued - I didn't argue, she left.

So here are my concerns & questions:

1 - As I understand pacing procedure - Office should be following you on a constant speed for some time in order to actually determine your speed. In my case officer wasn't following me but just was approaching and her speed could be even 100-150kmh to catch me but still it doesn't mean that I was speeding.

2 - It was a 3 a.m. - so will the night time can be the reason of not accurate calculations?

3 - I'll go to court on Monday to schedule an Option 2 and as soon as I receive a meeting time, I'll request a disclosure. (please correct me if I'm wrong in procedures)

4 - Since my wife was on a passenger seat, can she be a witness that officer actually didn't follow us and just cut t he distance + if I wasn't speeding?

5 - How should I defend and what should I say on an early resolution meeting with prosecutor.

I'm 23 years old and I drive a CX-9 Mazda, so not a great car for a racing + I pay for it by myself as well as for insurance, so I don't want this ticket to effect my premium which is up for renewal in August 2013 and 3 points of course.

May be I'm missing something? but it seams to me that I received ticket for nothing on the end of the month.

I really appreciate all the replies

Have a great day!

bradlex wrote:I explained that it couldn't be so that maximum what I could be doing is 68kmh and it considering that I accelerated when I entered a 60 zone.

You made a pretty big mistake here. I don't know why you'd incriminate yourself like that. Whether you're doing 68 in a 60 or a 50, you're still speeding. Accelerating into 60 zone from a 50 isn't an excuse for nearly hitting 70. These type of statements can be used against you in trial and may have been written down by the officer. If you plan on defending yourself in any capacity, you should never make these sort of statements.

bradlex wrote:She replied that I was doing 85kmh to catch you...I asked once again how did she determine my speed, officer replied: "I had to do 85kmh to catch you (not following), it means that you where doing minimum 75kmh, so I paced you. You'll see everything in my notes"

I think you have different interpretations of what is being said. It sounds like she was pacing you from some distance behind and then sped up to finally pull you over. She had to do 85km to start closing the distance. She isn't saying she was pacing you bumper to bumper. It sounds like she was already going over the limit and was unable to get any closer to you. She then went up to 85 to start closing the distance and pull you over. She may have started pacing you from "3 or 4 blocks away" as you put it, not when she finally caught up. You'll know when you receive disclosure.

bradlex wrote:I asked her if I can see radar or something which can show the record of my speed

Even if radar was involved, they are under no obligation to show you anything.

bradlex wrote:1 - As I understand pacing procedure - Office should be following you on a constant speed for some time in order to actually determine your speed. In my case officer wasn't following me but just was approaching and her speed could be even 100-150kmh to catch me but still it doesn't mean that I was speeding.

Realistically, they don't have to be following you all that long to get a good indication of your speed. They don't even need to be following right behind you. You can be behind them or you can be 100 metres ahead. Shouldn't take more than a couple seconds depending on circumstances and distances.

bradlex wrote:2 - It was a 3 a.m. - so will the night time can be the reason of not accurate calculations?

No.

bradlex wrote:3 - I'll go to court on Monday to schedule an Option 2 and as soon as I receive a meeting time, I'll request a disclosure. (please correct me if I'm wrong in procedures)

Option 2 is reserved for people who wish to strike a plea deal for admission of guilt. If you're requesting disclosure, you're going to have to request a trial.

bradlex wrote:4 - Since my wife was on a passenger seat, can she be a witness that officer actually didn't follow us and just cut t he distance + if I wasn't speeding?

Sure, she can be a witness.

bradlex wrote:5 - How should I defend and what should I say on an early resolution meeting with prosecutor.

Early resolution meetings are not for defending. If you're going to start putting on a mini trial there, they will just end the whole thing and schedule a trial for you. They don't want to force a plea out of you if you believe you are innocent. If you believe you are not guilty, they will make sure you get a trial.

bradlex wrote:I'm 23 years old and I drive a CX-9 Mazda, so not a great car for a racing

No one is accusing you of breaking the sound barrier. You got your average speeding ticket.