Q&A - Excessive Speed on a Bridge

Q&A ImageI was stopped by a motorcycle officer over a 60kph bridge. I was going over the posted limit, and unaware of the "excessive speed" consequences. The officer claimed to have paced me and I was "pulling away from" him. I was asked initially how fast I thought I was going and ignorantly and mistakenly guessed "110". I passed cars while signaling (right lane, left lane, right lane, stop at the red light). The officer used the pacing method to judge speed, of which I'm unaware of how long the pacing occured. Going over the bridge I only accelerated on that portion, which is a tiny span of road on a fairly light traffic day. Due to the fact that he claims I was "pulling away from" him, he claimed that the ticket he was writing was to a lesser value than what it should have been.

Ticket states, 110+/60, 1 > 3 > 4, and Pace 1/2 back. What do those notes mean on the ticket? 

My question is, while gave the officer likely sufficient evidence to prove that I was over 40, do the circumstances of lacking radar equipment allow me to have a case in traffic court? Is a motorcycle's speed harder to guage by the pacing method? I do realize it is best to have a disclosure as well to see what he has noted down. I do know that his word trumps mine, and I do know I should not have guessed my speed. I also do know that you will ask if I was "actually speeding", and yes I feel I would have been, but is there a chance to argue of inaccuracy as there is no solid evidence? 

Would my best course of action be to consult a lawyer? Or negotiate having the penalty reduced to non-excessive? Is this something that is possible, even though the officer refused to do that upon issuing the ticket?

And if I do get the charge changed, would I be compensated for monetary losses for the impound fees? 

Pacing is a method of measuring speed that is accepted by the courts. The officer will say that they matched speeds with the vehicle in question, followed for a period of time and used a speedometer with confirmed accuracy to verify the speed. If the vehicle being measured is visibly moving away from the pacing police vehicle then it is a valid assumption that the speed is above that shown on the police vehicle speedometer. How much above will depend on the officer's ability to accurately describe and express an opinion on it and the accused's ability to counter that testimony if the accused chooses to testify. The officer's opinion of speed is also acceptable by the court as is anyone's that has experience driving a motor vehicle.

I can only guess what the officer's notes mean. They are unique to the individual that made them and you will have to ask, either at trial or via a disclosure request for their meaning.

Radar or laser are not required for the prosecution of a speeding offence. To me, the pace would be "solid evidence" and you will have to find a way to discredit that.

You can certainly ask a lawyer for advice. I always mention Lawyer Referral as it is an economical way to do that. You can always negotiate with the officer too. The outcome of that will likely depend on how strong a case they feel they have.

As for the impound, "Vehicle impoundment which occurs at the roadside is an administrative process, and cannot be revoked as a result of a successful dispute of a traffic violation ticket. The vehicle impoundment remains valid, and all related costs are the responsibility of the driver or vehicle owner."

Thanks for the answer, I suspected this was the case, but the solid confirmation gives me a better grasp overall. I hope this information is useful to others. I will update upon ruling.  

I doubt this is an area of expertise, but the entire incident according to the disclosure happened within 750 meters, or just under 1/2 a mile, from point of contact to being pulled over. From what I could tell from some quick google searching, there is no limitation on how long an officer needs to pace a vehicle to provide an estimate. Do you think by chance there would be argue that the estimate would be inaccurate based on the short distance? 

I expect to see a reply telling me to find a lawyer for these questions...but please entertain me? 



All that I have ever needed to do in traffic court was to testify that I matched speeds with the vehicle being paced and then read what was shown on the police vehicle's speedometer. I was always careful to explain that I matched speeds, insured that the vehicle I was pacing was neither becoming closer nor pulling away and that I had verified the speedometer and my radar were reading as expected during patrols that shift.

No one has ever raised the point about any specific following distance although this would characterize the incident as either one being short term or one being a more deliberate choice.