Must read: Inconsistent radar testing casts doubt on validity of millions of tickets | GTAMotorcycle.com

Must read: Inconsistent radar testing casts doubt on validity of millions of tickets

Oh, one more thing: what's the deal with the disproportionate number of tickets in Quebec and Ontario?
(disproportionate compared to population by province)

speeding-tickets-in-canada.jpg
 
That chart should have instead shown the numbers of speeding tickets per capita rather than total speeding tickets.

That would be the only true way of seeing the proportions.

If I wasn't lazy I'd do the math, if someone isn't lazy go for it.
 
Let's focus on the main issue of the article:

What if there are millions of speeding tickets that used invalid evidence? How much money did Canadians pay for no reason?

Is the OPP going to correct this mess now?
 
MarcosSantiago said:
Oh, one more thing: what's the deal with the disproportionate number of tickets in Quebec and Ontario?
(disproportionate compared to population by province)

speeding-tickets-in-canada.jpg
Click to expand...
Golly Gee, You don't think it could be related to the number of vehicles on the road do you? Considering Quebec has twice as many cars as Alberta and Ontario almost three times? Alberta seems to be using tickets as a cash cow. As usual no one wants to do the math, or basic research. :(
 
MarcosSantiago said:
Let's focus on the main issue of the article:

What if there are millions of speeding tickets that used invalid evidence? How much money did Canadians pay for no reason?

Is the OPP going to correct this mess now?
Click to expand...

Think of the last time you were caught speeding. Were you actually not speeding? How close was the reading?

Is a tuning fork test requirement documented in the manuals?

It's an interesting argument. Do all old, and perhaps obsolete, procedures need to be followed for ever and ever?
 
I have a speeding ticket on my record, was I speeding, well I paid the fine lets leave it at that. Was reduced to 10 over so all 55 bucks or whatever it turned out to be.

The interesting part to this claim would be if all these speeding tickets do get thrown out (I don't see that happening). My speeding ticket was the second minor ticket I had received in a three year span; so insurance charged mean extra 15% on my rates for the last three years. I wouldn't expect the insurance company to be rushing to pay me my surcharge back if the ticket was thrown out.

Sort of makes the whole claim a bit irrelevant to me and others in the same boat I'm sure.
 
Last edited:
I "think" all tickets for anything should be thrown out. There my opinion is as valid as the lawyers..LOL It is about as likely as it is to happen for him. As for the chart it really should show tickets per number of registered vehicles in each province. To me Alberta seems disporportionate compared to most others, BUT then it is also for approx 15 months as opposed to 12 that most of the rest have. Not sure with the large numbers of vehicles registered in Ontario and Quebec it is a "cash cow" here.
 
Baggsy said:
Golly Gee, You don't think it could be related to the number of vehicles on the road do you? Considering Quebec has twice as many cars as Alberta and Ontario almost three times? Alberta seems to be using tickets as a cash cow. As usual no one wants to do the math, or basic research. :(
Click to expand...

Would you please post the link that shows that Quebec has twice as many cars as Alberta?

Why are you considering number of cars registered per province? I think that metric is useless, because a resident may have 5 vehicles registered to his name, but he can only operate one at the time, therefore the number that we should use for this discussion is the population per province.
 
hedo2002 said:
I "think" all tickets for anything should be thrown out. There my opinion is as valid as the lawyers..LOL It is about as likely as it is to happen for him. As for the chart it really should show tickets per number of registered vehicles in each province. To me Alberta seems disporportionate compared to most others, BUT then it is also for approx 15 months as opposed to 12 that most of the rest have. Not sure with the large numbers of vehicles registered in Ontario and Quebec it is a "cash cow" here.
Click to expand...

Again, why do you think the number of vehicles registered per province is useful?
Yes, I'm sure there are lots of cars and trucks registered in Que, but... Cars from out of province do not get speeding tickets in Quebec?
How could we explain that Quebec writes the largest number of tickets in Canada? Is it by chance the province with the most enforcement?
 
MarcosSantiago said:
Would you please post the link that shows that Quebec has twice as many cars as Alberta?

Why are you considering number of cars registered per province? I think that metric is useless, because a resident may have 5 vehicles registered to his name, but he can only operate one at the time, therefore the number that we should use for this discussion is the population per province.
Click to expand...

Sure, I actually thought that I did, but it's not there now.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/trade14c-eng.htm
 
MarcosSantiago said:
Again, why do you think the number of vehicles registered per province is useful?
Yes, I'm sure there are lots of cars and trucks registered in Que, but... Cars from out of province do not get speeding tickets in Quebec?
How could we explain that Quebec writes the largest number of tickets in Canada? Is it by chance the province with the most enforcement?
Click to expand...


Simple math if there are 5 million VEHICLES registered in Quebec and they write 600,00 spedding tickets per year then thqat is approx 1 in every 10 vehicles gets a ticket if however Alberta writes 300,000 tickets and there are only 1 million vehicles registered in Alberta then 1 of every 3 veicles is ticketed. meaning it is more of a cash cow in ALberta then it is as you suggest it is in Ont and PQ. But these are just EXAMPLE numbers that is why I asked how many vehicles are registered in each province would make a better apples to apples comparison ratgher than just the number of total tickets.
 
The reality is that the "tuning fork procedure" is probably redundant in this day and age. A radar gun is a computerized electronic gizmo. When is the last time you "calibrated" your computer's internal clock to ensure that it is accurate? Do you do that at the beginning and ending of every login to make sure your computer's clock is accurate? It's a joke. There shouldn't be anything in that instrument to go out of calibration.

Does that mean radar guns are 100% accurate each and every time? Absolutely not. But the errors that radar guns can make are the same ones that they've always made: grabbing a speed from the wrong vehicle because the faster-moving truck returned a stronger signal than your closer-moving moped, grabbing a speed of an unknown vehicle in traffic, all sorts of issues associated with moving-mode leading to an incorrect patrol car speed reading in addition to all of the above for the closing speed, being influenced by moving parts on the vehicle that instantaneously aren't moving at road speed (the top of your wheels is instantaneously moving at double the road speed and the contact patch with the ground is instantaneously moving at zero), etc. A tuning-fork test doesn't help with any of this.
 
Baggsy said:
Think of the last time you were caught speeding. Were you actually not speeding? How close was the reading?

Is a tuning fork test requirement documented in the manuals?

It's an interesting argument. Do all old, and perhaps obsolete, procedures need to be followed for ever and ever?
Click to expand...

The requirement is to perform the manufacturer's recommended testing procedure. As models change and some become obsolete, so does the testing procedure.
 
Must read: Inconsistent radar testing casts doubt on validity of millions of ...

Baggsy said:
Think of the last time you were caught speeding. Were you actually not speeding? How close was the reading?

Is a tuning fork test requirement documented in the manuals?

It's an interesting argument. Do all old, and perhaps obsolete, procedures need to be followed for ever and ever?
Click to expand...

Proper checks and balances need to be in place to ensure justice is served. Listening to the manufacture to know what tests are sufficient would be biased because the manufacture will say the bare minimum required to make the sale and to not cast doubt on the equipment or add to operating/ongoing costs. To take balanced approach in considering law enforcement and the public interests, listening to an independent expert or a panel is what should be considered as a factor to determine what testing should be done to ensure the equipment regularly performs within specs/thresholds.
 
Last edited:
Re: Must read: Inconsistent radar testing casts doubt on validity of millions of ...

I have been hearing these stories for years. I have only heard of one occasion when it worked.
It happened in Ottawa when I was living there in the 80s. The driver was an electrical engineer for the National Research Council.
He proved that the radar the cops were using could give a false reading because the place where the reading was taken had several large electrical transformers nearby.
This was one of the Ottawa Police favorite speed traps.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
The requirement is to perform the manufacturer's recommended testing procedure. As models change and some become obsolete, so does the testing procedure.
Click to expand...
The CBC article makes the claim, that there were no "new models" that made the tuning fork test obsolete.

The exact same RADAR devices are being used in the United States where law enforcement are doing the "tuning fork test".

The only difference is that the OPP asked Decatur to remove the test, because their officers were not doing them; and some were lying under oath, that they actually did it. ^this is straight from the CBC article.

John McNall, a former OPP speed-management co-ordinator, said he asked U.S. radar manufacturer Decatur Electronics to take the test out of its operating manuals in 2004. He cited concerns officers were "fudging their evidence" by testifying under oath that they had correctly used tuning forks when, in fact, they often didn't do the test, misunderstood it, or couldn't find the forks, he said.

"The officer would give evidence that he tested it in accordance with manufacturer's instructions and technically would be perjuring himself," McNall told CBC News.​

Decatur could care less, they will remove whatever test is necessary in order to make a sale. If OPP asked them to remove all the tests in exchange for an annual internal circuit check. They will do it.

There are many RADAR manufacturers that the OPP can purchase from; which ever one does what they're told... gets the business.
 
That is so arse backwards it's not funny.

It should be the manufacturer of the device that sets out what tests need to be done, if any (and probably none need to be, with how electronics work in this day and age).

It shouldn't be the cops telling the manufacturer to take the test out of the manual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom