Speeding, critieria for "pacing"??

In CA,

I was tagged with the usual CVC22350, going 40+ in a 25.
I was thinking of fighting it, but wasn't sure. He said paced me, but i was never in his actual sight, it's a dark dirt road in teh desert, so the officer's headlights were never in my rear view mirror. If he couldn't see me, could he really pace me? So i wanted to know if I have a legitimate chance to win or not.

Here's the full story, just incase.
Its a small desert dirt road on a state run off-highway vehicle park in CA. Its was near midnight so its pitch black. I passed an on coming car (the officer) and noticed he was trying to make a U turn. The road is extremely narrow, so I'm sure it was like a 5 pt U turn. His head lights were no where in my rear view mirror because the dirt road was curvey, and there a lot of dust kicked up everytime a car drives on it. i eventually caught up to a large truck pulling a trailer at a crawling pace, approx 5-10 mpg. That is when the officer caught up to me and stopped me. I told him i never saw anyone in my rear view, but he said he paced me. I know its his word against mine in a court of law, i just want to know if his "pacing" was enough to convict me?
Thanks in advance for your input!!

Also, visual estimation of speed is often sufficient. If you wanted to challeneg the officer's training and experience in this area, you certainly could. But if the officer has been to a radar school (and if he is CHP he has), then he is already trained in visual estimation.

Consult a local traffic attorney if you intend to fight this.

- Carl

visual estimating

Different state different laws.

In NC they are - supposed- to back up Visual estimating with either radar or Pacing.

Is it diffent in CA? Just curious.

Thanks.

LSCAP said:

Different state different laws.

In NC they are - supposed- to back up Visual estimating with either radar or Pacing.

Is it diffent in CA? Just curious.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

In CA we do not have to back up a visual estimation with either one. Radar training is such that you are trained to make a visual estimation and then confirm it with radar or lidar, but the visual does not need to be confirmed with such a device ... it certainly leaves less room for a defense to wiggle out of, but it is possible and does happen frequently - particularly when the speeds are excessive. For instance, citing for 50 in a 45 is not likely going to fly on a visual estimation. But, citing for a visual 50 in a 25 is going to be pretty easy.

I am not trained on radar, and I have been permitted to make visual estimations based upon my many years driving and my many years as an officer. the greater the difference between the limit and the estimated speed, the easier case it is to make.

- Carl

From the highway safety deskbook by the NHTSA
"Speedometer Clocks

Although often neglected in today's age of technology, speed-ometer clocks are the least expensive method of clocking speeders and can be extremely effective. Radar and LIDAR detectors are useless against an officer who is proficient in speedometer clocking.

The patrol car speedometer is used to pace vehicles. The most important component of this method is an accurate speedometer that is certified by the factory. A speedometer can be calibrated several ways: fifth wheel attached to the rear of the vehicle; using a stopwatch that has been certified to clock the patrol car over a measured course; or using a dynamometer, which allows the patrol vehicle wheels to rotate in place while the speedometer is checked against the device for discrepancy (probably the best method and also the most expensive).

The advantage to the dynamometer method is that it can be combined with maintenance procedures so the patrol officer does not have to certify the speedometer while on patrol. Using the dynamometer also allows more administrative control."


Beyond this the officer has to maintain a constant separation and track the vehicle for a sufficient time to make the measurment valid (usually 1/2 mile+)

LSCAP said:

Different state different laws.

In NC they are - supposed- to back up Visual estimating with either radar or Pacing.

Is it diffent in CA? Just curious.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

I was led to beleive by articles they can be certified and have a card and are tested for accuracy at visual estimation to obtain the card in CA.

If they are allowed and not ever tested for accuracy then that is a real joke. NHTSA doesn't endorse visual "guessing"

"The biggest scam regarding claims of the ability to visually estimate speeds is that it can’t actually be done at high speeds. Officers are tested in their police training on their ability to estimate the speed of vehicles, and are required to be within 5 mph of what the vehicle is actually traveling. If you ever hear an officer testify about this they make it sound rather impressive. That is until you realize that these tests are conducted on roads where the average speed is 25 to 30 mph and there’s just enough traffic to keep speeds constant. They especially like roads where passing is difficult. If they guess correctly 8 out of 10 times, they’re certified as having special speed estimation abilities. Now they can estimate the speed of a vehicle going 80 miles per hour from a mile away!"

I like this passage from the NMA...

cepe10 said:

I was led to beleive by articles they can be certified and have a card and are tested for accuracy at visual estimation to obtain the card in CA.

If they are allowed and not ever tested for accuracy then that is a real joke. NHTSA doesn't endorse visual "guessing"

Click to expand...

To complete radar training and certification you MUST complete the visual estimation portion of the training which includes validation of the estimate by radar or lidar.

- Carl

cepe10 said:

"The biggest scam regarding claims of the ability to visually estimate speeds is that it can’t actually be done at high speeds. Officers are tested in their police training on their ability to estimate the speed of vehicles, and are required to be within 5 mph of what the vehicle is actually traveling. If you ever hear an officer testify about this they make it sound rather impressive. That is until you realize that these tests are conducted on roads where the average speed is 25 to 30 mph and there’s just enough traffic to keep speeds constant. They especially like roads where passing is difficult. If they guess correctly 8 out of 10 times, they’re certified as having special speed estimation abilities. Now they can estimate the speed of a vehicle going 80 miles per hour from a mile away!"

I like this passage from the NMA...

Click to expand...

I guess they haven't been to radar training out here.

- Carl

CdwJava said:

I guess they haven't been to radar training out here.

- Carl

Click to expand...

that's good to here. I'd like to see the testing include various object from dogs to airplanes for a significant range of conflictors to make the testing range statistically (and reported accuracy) significant.

cepe10 said:

that's good to here. I'd like to see the testing include various object from dogs to airplanes for a significant range of conflictors to make the testing range statistically (and reported accuracy) significant.

Click to expand...

Those measurements would be irrelevant as there is no need to measure the speed of those objects. If you want to see such a thing, you can certainly create your own "training" and do so. Since I have never had reason to measure the speed of an airplane or a dog, I would consider such speed estimation a waste of time.

- Carl