I am still at liberty.
The trial date today was the court's "final date" with no possibility for extension. Given that fact, the smartass prosecutor was unwilling to negotiate a settlement.
On my instructions, my lawyer threatened to bring in several expert witnesses to support my extensive documentation on this case (thank you Bohdan for the generous offer to testify) as well as calling in both police officers involved in the ticket. This would suddenly require them to set a new date, contact the officers and incur some expense - if I won.
However, surprise, they decided to negotiate, and with me on the phone, they agreed to accept a 6 kph reduction which would make it 2 or 3 points (instead of 5 or 6) and about $120 instead of $835. Not bad.
I would love to post my defense (my lawyers said it was the best they had ever seen) but it's too large to attach. I will try to reduce and post later.
Free at last...
Congratulations David!!!
Hopefully the $700 you saved covers the legal bill plus gives you enough left over to take the family out to dinner - and then maybe a couple of tanks of gas!
Well Done!
Hopefully the $700 you saved covers the legal bill plus gives you enough left over to take the family out to dinner - and then maybe a couple of tanks of gas!
Well Done!
quote:Originally posted by David B:
... they decided to negotiate, and with me on the phone, they agreed to accept a 6 kph reduction which would make it 2 or 3 points (instead of 5 or 6) and about $120 instead of $835 ... Free at last ...
Feel free to use this defense if you ever find the need. However, call me first as there are some, well, discrepencies.
And, oh yeah, make sure you don't have a bunch of youtube videos of you acting like a crazy 17 yr old with your licence plate in full view. Duh...
And, oh yeah, make sure you don't have a bunch of youtube videos of you acting like a crazy 17 yr old with your licence plate in full view. Duh...
Attachments
Images (1)
David,
First, let me say congratulations. Big tickets are much harder to fight and win than little ones. Very thorough defense indeed! I guess the only thing the prosecution missed is that a highly modified car is going to accelerate much quicker than a magazine test of bone stock equipment. Good for you.
Doug M
First, let me say congratulations. Big tickets are much harder to fight and win than little ones. Very thorough defense indeed! I guess the only thing the prosecution missed is that a highly modified car is going to accelerate much quicker than a magazine test of bone stock equipment. Good for you.
Doug M
Great Defence ...
Loved the whole story.
I glad your car accelerates to 60mph in only 5.5 seconds
.
B.G.
Loved the whole story.
I glad your car accelerates to 60mph in only 5.5 seconds
.B.G.
I have to add that it's a good thing the cops don't have any knowledge of GPS or digital maps. ;-)
Well done!
Well done!
I wouldn't worry about the maps or GPS. I actually walked the distance with a wheel to confirm these measurements. And my GPS is very accurate. Ask Bohdan.
But, there are indeed several major loopholes in my defense. Can you spot them?
As for the police, or the courts, all they would have to do is Google me and Pantera and they will easily find enough youtube videos to quickly destroy any credibility I may have presented.
But, there are indeed several major loopholes in my defense. Can you spot them?
As for the police, or the courts, all they would have to do is Google me and Pantera and they will easily find enough youtube videos to quickly destroy any credibility I may have presented.
I work in the GPS industry. We sell high-end GPS tracking and messaging system to the oil and gas industry. I have heard from many clients that they were able to use our active GPS 'map trace' function (and supporting minute-by-minute reports) to have speeding tickets outright dismissed in court. I have ask for some more details in light of this thread. I will post the steps they took in their defence (while maintaining confidentiality, of course), but I would assume their logic to be similar to David's with the main exception being that they actually had real-time GPS evidence to present.
In other news, I was called by my insurance company (Aviva - brokered by Competition Insurance) and I was offered a 30% reduction in my 2009 premiums because I have just installed an active GPS system into my cat. Once I'm able to hit the road again, I will send links to the GPS data that I pull from our software. I am wondering if I'll be able to peak the GPS speed-o over the 300 km/h mark ... if only for a minute.
In other news, I was called by my insurance company (Aviva - brokered by Competition Insurance) and I was offered a 30% reduction in my 2009 premiums because I have just installed an active GPS system into my cat. Once I'm able to hit the road again, I will send links to the GPS data that I pull from our software. I am wondering if I'll be able to peak the GPS speed-o over the 300 km/h mark ... if only for a minute.
quote:Originally posted by EA #3528:
I work in the GPS industry. We sell high-end GPS tracking and messaging system to the oil and gas industry. I have heard from many clients that they were able to use our active GPS 'map trace' function (and supporting minute-by-minute reports) to have speeding tickets outright dismissed in court. I have ask for some more details in light of this thread. I will post the steps they took in their defence (while maintaining confidentiality, of course), but I would assume their logic to be similar to David's with the main exception being that they actually had real-time GPS evidence to present.
In other news, I was called by my insurance company (Aviva - brokered by Competition Insurance) and I was offered a 30% reduction in my 2009 premiums because I have just installed an active GPS system into my cat. Once I'm able to hit the road again, I will send links to the GPS data that I pull from our software. I am wondering if I'll be able to peak the GPS speed-o over the 300 km/h mark ... if only for a minute.
So what happens if there was an accident (lets hope not) and the Ins. Co. gets a hold of the GPS and sees that maybe the accident was caused by the fact that the car was doing say 140mph? Then they decide they don't what to pay for the claim? Some things BIG brother doesn't need to know. Just a thought.
Well, big brother is already there!
New cars have 'black boxes' like aircraft that record all relevant factors for review in case of an incident.
But I'm not sure how the laws may vary regarding access to this info.
New cars have 'black boxes' like aircraft that record all relevant factors for review in case of an incident.
But I'm not sure how the laws may vary regarding access to this info.
Overall, an impressive package, but since you asked about 'loopholes', here's what caught my attention (much of it 'tongue in cheek') ...
First off, your estimates are from a standing start, in fact, you were already traveling at some speed going around the corner and probably already clocking and in 2nd gear with your foot to the floor at the point where you began measuring the 402 feet (not exactly a 0-60 situation).
There is also no way to know for sure that the photo of your GPS unit was truly taken immediately after the infraction (if you tell me it was, I'd believe you, but that doesn't mean the courts would) - here's what struck me about the GPS photo (1) It shows your max speed was only 40miles/hour for the trip (ok, something tells me your genetic code won't let you take a drive in the cat with a max speed of only 40mph.) (2) It shows your stopped time was only 10:17 - did he really get your license/ownership/insurance, run it and then issue a ticket in only 6-7 minutes (I'm allowing for about 3-4 minutes for traffic lights and stop signs during your excursion).
(3) I'm assuming that you were out to enjoy the cat for a while, and the ticket would have put a huge damper on that, but did you really just turn around and go home? The out-and-back mileage on the GPS just makes me go hmmm.
(4) The date stamp on the picture of the GPS is from '07 - admittedly you may not have set the clock on your camera, but it does call into question when you actually took the picture.
Next, since I'm not sure from the pictures what obstructions may have existed, I don't know why you show in "2" such a short distance for where "radar could have recorded speed of vehicle" - I would have thought he could have still picked you up much closer to point #3, and therefore your total distance for acceleration would have been well over 500 feet.
Finally, the distance from #4 to #5 makes me think you must have been going a good clip for the cops to need that much distance to catch you
Please feel free to knock any of my ideas - it's just what I came up with, and there are likely problems with my assumptions.
I'm glad you beat most of the rap.
First off, your estimates are from a standing start, in fact, you were already traveling at some speed going around the corner and probably already clocking and in 2nd gear with your foot to the floor at the point where you began measuring the 402 feet (not exactly a 0-60 situation).
There is also no way to know for sure that the photo of your GPS unit was truly taken immediately after the infraction (if you tell me it was, I'd believe you, but that doesn't mean the courts would) - here's what struck me about the GPS photo (1) It shows your max speed was only 40miles/hour for the trip (ok, something tells me your genetic code won't let you take a drive in the cat with a max speed of only 40mph.) (2) It shows your stopped time was only 10:17 - did he really get your license/ownership/insurance, run it and then issue a ticket in only 6-7 minutes (I'm allowing for about 3-4 minutes for traffic lights and stop signs during your excursion).
(3) I'm assuming that you were out to enjoy the cat for a while, and the ticket would have put a huge damper on that, but did you really just turn around and go home? The out-and-back mileage on the GPS just makes me go hmmm.
(4) The date stamp on the picture of the GPS is from '07 - admittedly you may not have set the clock on your camera, but it does call into question when you actually took the picture.
Next, since I'm not sure from the pictures what obstructions may have existed, I don't know why you show in "2" such a short distance for where "radar could have recorded speed of vehicle" - I would have thought he could have still picked you up much closer to point #3, and therefore your total distance for acceleration would have been well over 500 feet.
Finally, the distance from #4 to #5 makes me think you must have been going a good clip for the cops to need that much distance to catch you
Please feel free to knock any of my ideas - it's just what I came up with, and there are likely problems with my assumptions.
I'm glad you beat most of the rap.
quote:Unfortunately, while we have some great driving roads, we also have a population that fervently believes "speed kills". It is a matter of cherished belief in Canada that a bored idiot driving a '74 Pinto with iffy brakes causing havoc by going 10 km/h below the limit is OK, but a competent, attentive driver who has invested in a mechanically optimized high performance vehicle is a public menace if they exceed the speed limit by any amount.
In Canada, we have 3,000 traffic fatalities per year and this causes the Safety Nazis to demand ever more draconian laws that take all the joy out of driving (instead of pushing for safer roads and better driver training, which might actually do something to address the problem). At the same time, we have on the order of 23,000 deaths annually due to preventable medical errors in our hospitals. No one says a damn thing about that, though, because our precious universal health care system is a sacred cow.
My answer is to try not to think about the lunacy too much lest I lose what little remains of my own sanity, and simply invest in a good radar detector. Then, if I pick up a ticket here and there, I simply look at it as just yet another tax I have to pay for the privilege of living in this lotus eating la-la land.
(Have been out of town - getting caught up on the posts)
RIGHT ON PETER !!
In the aviation business, when a pilot does something "questionable" - rather than improve training, piloting skill, situation awareness etc., we are tasked to engineer out the stupidity. Unfortunately, the "engineering out" affects the whole community. I feel the attitude of simple lawmakers is much the same on the roads - easier to try to "engineer out" the problem in a politically expedient way (that may or may not make any sense).
We should be training our drivers to:
1) Know and maintain their vehicles,
2) Know their driving skills
3) Know the condition of the roads they are driving on.
4) Respect the weather conditions.
5) Respect 1 - 4 and drive accordingly.
Or, we can believe in Darwinining selection and assume the bored idiot will be "naturally selected out".
I wonder what the German accident rate is? Surely, part of the price of the Autobahn is to ensure a vehicle is maintained roadworthy manner
I have just adopted Peter's view of looking a speeding tickets as another form of TAX.