Originally Posted by zeroptzero

I didn't say I wanted to pay the cop , I asked if I could pay the ticket on-line, like I would expect any normal municipality to offer., but I was in some backward town when I got the ticket.

And yes under those circumstances not paying an arbitrary set fine is is proper in my books. Even when I called the town offices a couple months after I returned home they still couldn't tell me the amount of the fine, the clerk told me the find could be anywhere form $90 to $180, and I asked how they determined if it was the high amount or the low amount, I was told it was up to an administrator to decide what amount they would end up with. So it wasn't just the cop who didn't know the fine. So why bother at that point.

I had tickets in Washington where they told me the amount on the ticket that was issued to me, and yes in Canada all tickets issued tell you the amount of the charge, I guess we do some things better here.

I'm not sure why you are so sensitive about me not paying a traffic ticket, it isn't like skipping out on child support, maybe it results in one less donut for that one cop as his quota was a bit less that month.

Originally Posted by sam_spider

Not sensitive at all, just not impressed with your portrayal of officers, tickets and degrading the area you were traveling in.
Not all cities operate in the same manner, in some places it is up to the judge what the fine is, that’s not new here in this country. There are places that require court appearance, is it a pain, yes, but you got the ticket it’s part of the penalty you pay in getting caught.

If Canada’s system allows you to pay online regardless of province well I guess good for you. Like I said, this isn’t Canada. Rules are different from country to country, and state to state.

Originally Posted by boltonblue

I would not make that statement in court as it is not correct.
You would need a certificate from the radar manufacturer regarding effective distance.
It is not a trivial measurement, transmitter power/ distance^2 is the incoming wave power. This reflected power is defined by the frontal area* reflection coefficient * incoming power.
The power presented to the receiver is the reflected power/ distance^2 which must be greater than the minimum sensitivity of the receiver to achieve a valid measurement.

I believe you have a valid argument on the unobserved measurement.
I would ask that he state the speed you were traveling when he could directly observe your vehicle.
I.e the close up reading not the over the hill reading. Radar is a line of sight measurement device.
If a vehicle is on the far side of hill, the radar will shoot over the hill and off into the wild blue yonder and only see noise.
from the pics and map I don't have a clear understanding.
Was he moving or stationary? If stationary a picture of where he was sitting and what his view was.
During cross exam ask the officer how many vehicles did he observe turning into the side street during the interval in question.
This a better approach than stating he couldn't see. allow him to say he couldn't see it.

Originally Posted by Kyras

Hey Jerry, if you have any more advice I would love to hear it. I am a total chickenshit going to court and extra super chickenshit talking to the officer and really never thought of doing the cross examination with him. At least I know he's kind and loves S2000s. If you have any more pointers I would love to hear them. After reading your post I thought well, maybe I can do that. Maybe I should start with, "Please explain to me how you got my radar speed."

I figure maybe it's time to put on the big girl panties for this.