Inaccurate Location on Ticket and Radar Calibration Requirements


I have a few questions about my upcoming trial for an excessive speeding ticket that I hope you guys may have some input or advice for.

A bit of background:

I received a ticket alleging that I was travelling at 140 km/h on a pitch-black Sea-to-Sky Hwy within the section with numerous twists and turns in a car which 1) I was driving for the first time, 2) did not belong to me, and 3) was very expensive. And so I was careful to keep to the speed limit. I don't believe it would even have been possible to go that fast at that location with that many sharp turns, let a lone in a car that I was entirely unfamiliar with. I believe I'm innocent.

My questions:

  1. In his disclosure, the officer sent me 2 copies of the exact same certificate and claimed that the radar was tested with 2 separate tuning forks stipulated by the certificates. There was also no record at all of the actual testing which he claimed to have taken place before and after his shift. Noting that a moving radar has to be tested with 2 separate tuning forks, how likely will I be able to nullify his radar evidence based on this point?
  2. Related but more material, the radar and tuning fork were certified back in 2010. I know some provinces require the tuning forks themselves be tested regularly but I am unaware of such a requirement in BC. For the radar, is there a difference between regular testing and calibration? For the tuning forks, I presume they're not regularly tested and are not recertified once they've left the factory. Will I be able to bring up these points to discredit the radar evidence? It seems strange that the devices regularly used to ensure the accuracy of the radars are not themselves required to be tested and maintained. 
  3. The officer was all over the place with the location of the charge. I was pulled over on Hwy1 right before exit 11. But my conversation with the officer confirmed his belief that I was not speeding immediately prior to his pulling me over (where I've kept to the limit), but that I was speeding a few km's up the road (where it was twisty). Then, on the ticket the officer wrote a location that was right near Taylor Way, which was another 2.5 km down the road away from where I was pulled over. Can I use this discrepancy to discredit his case?

Thank you for your help and I would greatly appreciate any advice you may have.




I think you're clutching at straws. If you were driving the speed limit - wherever - then it makes no sense that he/she took a dozen or more kilometers to catch you in a cruiser with lights and sirens.

As for location, Exit 11 is 15th Street and Exit 13 is Taylor Way, so you were near that - or actually nearest to it, if pulled over past the 15th St Exit. It's my guess that you were tagged around Westmount or Cypress (where 140 is an easy speed when traffic volume is low, though the limit is 90), they like to sit on the shoulder of the on-ramp with forward facing radar. 

I'm guessing your car was impounded, or at least somebody's car. 140 km/h is more than 40 over any legal speed from way back in the Squamish/Whistler section, so far as I recollect.

Meanwhile, there was a recent North Shore News story about a Post Office Van (and its cargo) getting impounded on that same stretch for 138 km/h! 

There is advice elsewhere on this site about fighting tickets and all the technicalities, but I doubt you have the ammunition you would need to beat this.

You're right

Thank you for the input. I haven't told the entirety of my story here. But after reading what you said, their allegations make even less sense to me.

There were actually 2 police cruisers in question. One was following behind me long before I reached the Westmount/Cypress area; this cruiser was the one that eventually pulled me over. The other one was just sitting at an exit divider right before Westmount with its lights flashing as I approached. As I spotted from far away the cruiser with the flashing lights just sitting there, my first reaction was of course to double check my speed - if I wasn't going 90, I would've definitely been below 100. I passed the flashing cruiser and continued onto the section of Hwy1 near Cypress where, as you said, 140 is an attainable speed without traffic. But here is the thing, I was extremely careful to keep to 90 after I'd passed the flashing cruiser, as there was still another suspicious looking pair of headlights following behind. Nonetheless, a few minutes later I was pulled over as we approached exit 11, and the officer alleged that I - and I quote - "only slowed down when I saw the flashing cruiser," which suggests his belief that I was speeding before Westmount on a section of road which, as I have stated, was full of twists and turns.

You are correct that my friend's car was impounded. This was extremely embarrassing. And I was more than puzzled by the fact that our MVA stipulates impounding - the seizure of private property - as a necessary measure before guilt is even established. I thought being treated as "innocent until proven guilty" was a basic principle of law in any developed nation. But I digress. Having read through a good dozen similar cases, you're probably right in saying that I won't win, as our traffic court just doesn't seem to be as impartial and formal a system compared to higher courts. But in the end, I do believe myself to be innocent, and I reckon that's the only reason I need to give it a try.


Google Ads