Got caught going 166 km/h on highway. Need help! | GTAMotorcycle.com

Got caught going 166 km/h on highway. Need help!

Z

Zangief

Well-known member
K, just got home from an absolutely horrendous night.
My and my buddy were going to Hamilton and an undercover OPP officer pulled us over and said that we were going 166 km/h!

We were in the HOV lane and when the lights came on I looked at the spedometer and it said 140. The cop didn't have a radar gun and said that he was following us for 2km, even though when we passed him he said he was going 103 km/h.

Would this stand in court? The officer didn't have a radar gun, basically guessed our speed, and then impounded my car and now I'm gonna get rocked for insurance and crazy fees (the cop said probably 2k + towing).

Any suggestions on how to deal with this?
 
Zangief said:
K, just got home from an absolutely horrendous night.
My and my buddy were going to Hamilton and an undercover OPP officer pulled us over and said that we were going 166 km/h!

We were in the HOV lane and when the lights came on I looked at the spedometer and it said 140. The cop didn't have a radar gun and said that he was following us for 2km, even though when we passed him he said he was going 103 km/h.

Would this stand in court? The officer didn't have a radar gun, basically guessed our speed, and then impounded my car and now I'm gonna get rocked for insurance and crazy fees (the cop said probably 2k + towing).

Any suggestions on how to deal with this?
Click to expand...

Welcome to the scenario which makes the HTA 172 act utterly useless, pointless, and predatory.

Hopefully others with advice can chime in to help you out. Wish you all the best.
 
Don't waste your time on the forum for this unless you are looking for lawyer recommendations. Good luck.
 
Nice catch.

Yes, it can hold up in court. A cop doesn't need radar to issue a ticket. Pacing is a perfectly valid way of determining speed, especially if he paced you for 2 km. It doesn't matter what your speedo was showing when the lights finally came on, the only thing that matters is the highest reading the cop saw while pacing you.

Save your pennies for the impound and tow charges. Then save some more for the lawyer that you're probably going to want to hire. Then save some more for the fine if your lawyer can't get you off ($2,000 minimum fine if convicted for the stunting charge) , and finally, save some more for the insurance company.
 
Last edited:
Your only hope is to try to deal with the crown and tell them you are willing to plead guilty to 49km/h over and make a donation to charity. This is a longshot though, considering you weren't going just 1 or 2 km/h over the 150 threshold. This law had the intended effect on me. Once I get close to 50k/h over the limit in any vehicle I drive I back off.
 
There are three valid methods for determination of speed, in Ontario. They are by using an approved speed measurement device (LASER/RADAR), measuring time between two fixed points, and pacing.

As others have said, you need an experienced traffic lawyer.
 
The big thing is he said he was following us for 2 km @ me going 166. When he was talking to me he said that he was cruising at 103. If he was following us for 2 k then in order for him to catch up he would have to have been in the high 190-200 range to have stopped us at the 2 k mark. I actually mapped out the distance as well and it turns out that it's only 1.3 k which makes this even more unreal. The needle didn't go past the 140 mark, I'm in a sub 200 hp car, in order for me to get to 166 I would have to have floored it for like 2 minutes.
Anyone have any idea what this is Gonna do to insurance? Any have any lawyer recomendations?
 
Zangief said:
The big thing is he said he was following us for 2 km @ me going 166. When he was talking to me he said that he was cruising at 103. If he was following us for 2 k then in order for him to catch up he would have to have been in the high 190-200 range to have stopped us at the 2 k mark. I actually mapped out the distance as well and it turns out that it's only 1.3 k which makes this even more unreal. The needle didn't go past the 140 mark, I'm in a sub 200 hp car, in order for me to get to 166 I would have to have floored it for like 2 minutes.
Anyone have any idea what this is Gonna do to insurance? Any have any lawyer recomendations?
Click to expand...

He was doing 103 when you passed him. Then he sped up and followed you.
My 125 hp car can get to 160 no problem.
 
murf said:
He was doing 103 when you passed him. Then he sped up and followed you.
My 125 hp car can get to 160 no problem.
Click to expand...

Yes, but in order to catch up to someone going 166 when you started out at 103 in the span of 1.3 km is a little out there no? It takes 28.2 seconds for me going 166 to get 1.3 km. It would take a guy going 103 45.44 seconds to clear 1.3 km. He caught up to me and finished in the same time (28.2 seconds). When I asked to see the radar gun he said that he saw the speed he was going on his speedometer when he caught me. If he had to get up to max 166 to catch me then I would ballpark my own speed at 135-140 which is what I was pretty sure I was going in the hov lane.
 
Zangief said:
The big thing is he said he was following us for 2 km @ me going 166. When he was talking to me he said that he was cruising at 103. If he was following us for 2 k then in order for him to catch up he would have to have been in the high 190-200 range to have stopped us at the 2 k mark. I actually mapped out the distance as well and it turns out that it's only 1.3 k which makes this even more unreal. The needle didn't go past the 140 mark, I'm in a sub 200 hp car, in order for me to get to 166 I would have to have floored it for like 2 minutes.
Anyone have any idea what this is Gonna do to insurance? Any have any lawyer recomendations?
Click to expand...

If he was originally cruising at 103, you would have passed him. Before that happened he would have seen you approaching fast in his mirrors and already begun the process of increasing his speed somewhat, only matching your speed once you had passed him.

You don't say what kind of cruiser, but fully-decked Crown Vics and Chevy Tahoes with light bars can do 0 to 160 kmph in under 23 seconds. Given that you managed to pass a police cruiser without seeing it, I'm guessing it was an unmarked cruiser with no light bar on the roof, less aerodynamic drag, and thus capable of even better performance. Either way, marked or unmarked, if the cop's starting speed was already up at 120 or so when you passed him, they could easily match your speed within a scant few seconds while sitting a lane or two over to your hright and behind you in your blind spot.


Arguing with the JP that your sub-200 hp car would have to be floored for "like two minutes" won't work. That will just convince the JP that you were up at that speed out of sustained deliberate intent and not out of a moment's inattention. Besides, even sub-100 hp cars can hit 166 kmph without breathing very hard.

If convicted, this is going to be a major conviction. While insurance companies usually forgive one and sometimes two tickets in any three year period, they do not forgive majors. You're looking at a 50% surcharge or more, depending on your insurance company, for up to 6 years.
 
People here can't do anything about the charge, and may give you awful advice or criticism.
Time to get someone who knows this area involved.
 
He didn't see me until I fully passed him. He said, word for word, 'when you passed me I was cruising at 103' I agree that the defense of 'my car is slow' won't work, but the cop had no clue how fast I was going. First he said he saw 166 on HIS speedometer, then later while I was waiting for tow he said I was in the 166 range.
 
Baggsy said:
People here can't do anything about the charge, and may give you awful advice or criticism.
Time to get someone who knows this area involved.
Click to expand...

Yea, very true, just kinda getting it all out there. This is my first violation and it's a doozy, I'm kinda rattled that one charge has a serious possibility of ending my car/motorcycle enjoyment, not to mention that it's gonna screw up my commute to school/work, and probably force me to get another job just to pay for all this.
 
Zangief said:
He didn't see me until I fully passed him. He said, word for word, 'when you passed me I was cruising at 103' I agree that the defense of 'my car is slow' won't work, but the cop had no clue how fast I was going. First he said he saw 166 on HIS speedometer, then later while I was waiting for tow he said I was in the 166 range.
Click to expand...

Even so, do you realize how little time it takes for a Crown Vic or a Tahoe to go from ZERO to 160 kmph? It's under 23 seconds. If he's already even at only 103, how much time do you think it would take to bump that up to 166? I'm figuring under 15 seconds. He doesn't have to catch right up to you to pace you and get your speed - he only has to maintain a given distance. Even by your math he had enough time to match speed and pace for sufficient time before hitting the lights.
 
It's not to get to 166. He's gotta go above and beyond 166 to catch up. Not saying he couldn't do it, but he said he started following me at walkers and I got pulled right at Guelph which is 1.3 km. You can't establish a constant speed if your a cop gunning it to catch a speeder, because now you gotta go above and beyond what the speeder is doing. If he saw 166 on his speedodemeter like he said he did, that's the speed he was going to catch up to me, not the constant speed I was going.
 
Zangief said:
It's not to get to 166. He's gotta go above and beyond 166 to catch up. Not saying he couldn't do it, but he said he started following me at walkers and I got pulled right at Guelph which is 1.3 km. You can't establish a constant speed if your a cop gunning it to catch a speeder, because now you gotta go above and beyond what the speeder is doing. If he saw 166 on his speedodemeter like he said he did, that's the speed he was going to catch up to me, not the constant speed I was going.
Click to expand...

All that he needs to do s maintain visual contact and match speed, for a period of time, in order to gauge how fast you were going. After that he can accelerate to catch up.

Make notes of everything that you can remember, while it's all fresh in your mind. Statements made by the officer might be useful in questioning during court proceedings, but answers might not agree with the original statements. Being able to show inconsistency in testimony is the only way that you're likely to be able to fight a paced speed.
 
Zangief said:
It's not to get to 166. He's gotta go above and beyond 166 to catch up. Not saying he couldn't do it, but he said he started following me at walkers and I got pulled right at Guelph which is 1.3 km. You can't establish a constant speed if your a cop gunning it to catch a speeder, because now you gotta go above and beyond what the speeder is doing. If he saw 166 on his speedodemeter like he said he did, that's the speed he was going to catch up to me, not the constant speed I was going.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to "catch up" in order to pace you. He just has to maintain constant distance.

Also, you say that he said he started following you "at Walkers Line"? What does that mean? Right at Walkers on the nose? A little before Walkers?

And 1.3 km from Walkers to Guelph Line? According to Google maps, if he started following you right at Walkers Line and stopped you right at Guelph Line, that's actually 2 km. If he actually started following you while "approaching" Walkers, now you're potentially looking at 3 km.

See where this is going? You really don't know exactly where the cop started pacing you. If you knew you would have seen him and slowed down, right?
 
True, he was undercover and I didn't know he was following till the lights came on. There's slot of stuff I don't know but the uncertainty of the cops answers make me uneasy. Like I said, 130-140 sure, but 166 is pushing it. He was the one who said walkers and he said after you were going the 166 range.
 
Zangief said:
True, he was undercover and I didn't know he was following till the lights came on. There's slot of stuff I don't know but the uncertainty of the cops answers make me uneasy. Like I said, 130-140 sure, but 166 is pushing it. He was the one who said walkers and he said after you were going the 166 range.
Click to expand...

The problem with you relying on the cop's stating he followed you "from Walkers" is that the statement carries no explicit or even implied measure of precision. It could reasonably be taken as an approximate starting point, but approximate still allows for a lot of leeway. "From Walkers" could even be seen as meaning the cop could see the Walkers Line exit in the distance ahead when he started pacing you, and it would still be a reasonably close-enough description as far as answering your roadside question goes.

Your own apparent uncertainty doesn't seem to help either. Now you say 130 to 140, but your opening post said you were doing 140 when the cop's lights went on. No indication that you had a clue what speed you were going even a minute or two earlier.

Also, the claimed pacing distance issue (your claimed 1.3 km distance from Walkers to Guelph) vs Google Maps indicated 2 km suggests a certain degree of self-serving numbers fudging on your part. So how would you possibly be able to aid in your own defence given your own lack of certainty over what happened?
 
turbodish said:
The problem with you relying on the cop's stating he followed you "from Walkers" is that the statement carries no explicit or even implied measure of precision. It could reasonably be taken as an approximate starting point, but approximate still allows for a lot of leeway. "From Walkers" could even be seen as meaning the cop could see the Walkers Line exit in the distance ahead when he started pacing you, and it would still be a reasonably close-enough description as far as answering your roadside question goes.

Your own apparent uncertainty doesn't seem to help either. Now you say 130 to 140, but your opening post said you were doing 140 when the cop's lights went on. No indication that you had a clue what speed you were going even a minute or two earlier.

Also, the claimed pacing distance issue (your claimed 1.3 km distance from Walkers to Guelph) vs Google Maps indicated 2 km suggests a certain degree of self-serving numbers fudging on your part. So how would you possibly be able to aid in your own defence given your own lack of certainty over what happened?
Click to expand...

Not sure of the exact numbers but will go over the route in my car counting the distance. My eyes weren't glued to the speedometer the whole time and when the lights came on thats when I checked, which is what 99% of people do when they see cop lights.
Sure, I'm uncertain to some events but based on what they cop was telling me I have a total length of pursuit, the speed at which the cop started at, and the speed I was supposedly going. I was keeping up with the flow of traffic, not passing everyone and weaving through traffic, on top of that, the cop didn't have a radar gun, changed his story, and the final cop who gave me the ticket wasn't even the cop that initially pulled me over. There is some serious doubt in this series of events and I just wanna figure out if there is a chance to get it down to a minor offense instead of a major stunting charge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom