Federal Law - 600ft "observation" of speeders?

[DucMonsterMan]

What is the name of your state? Colorado

I read on another forum that... "Federal law regarding speeding tickets say that the officer must be able to observe your car for 600ft. before a ticket is valid"...

In my case, this was not even close. I was ticketed for doing 76 in a 40 on a desolate mountain road. I had come over the crest of a hill and saw the officer ahead in a pick-up, who almost immediately turned on his lights for me to stop. It was not possible for him to observe me for any more then a couple of hundred feet (absolute maximum). In my opinion, he had to have been waiting, finger on radar-trigger, for the next vehicle to come into view.

He said the radar indicated 79, but was "locked" at 76. When I asked to see it he stated... "For safety reasons, I cannot show you the radar". I then asked to see the radar calibration docs and was told... "This will be made available to you in court".

I have a couple of witnesses that will testify to the position of the cop and plan to photograph the area, showing distances etc.

So is the 600ft thing a true statement and will it hold up in court in Colorado?

Another favorite of mine is the old... "the front view of a motorcyclist is 90% leather, rubber, carbon fibre and glass, but only 10% metal... so how can the radar be accurate?" ...anyone had any luck with this gem?

Any other advice to prevent this travesty of justice, leaglized extortion, etc. etc. is welcomed!

[poohmantbb]

Originally Posted by DucMonsterMan

Any other advice to prevent this travesty of justice, leaglized extortion, etc. etc.

Travesty of justice and legalized extortion when your going 39 miles over the limit???? I hope they nail your ass to a pole and take your license. Pay the fine**************. the 600 ft. thing is a bunch of crap.

[Curt581]

Originally Posted by DucMonsterMan

I read on another forum that... "Federal law regarding speeding tickets say that the officer must be able to observe your car for 600ft. before a ticket is valid"...

Absolutely FALSE

In my case, this was not even close. I was ticketed for doing 76 in a 40 In my opinion, he had to have been waiting, finger on radar-trigger, for the next vehicle to come into view.

How did you guess?

He said the radar indicated 79, but was "locked" at 76. When I asked to see it he stated... "For safety reasons, I cannot show you the radar". I then asked to see the radar calibration docs and was told... "This will be made available to you in court".

The cop was totally correct. He doesn't have to show you anything on the side of the road.

I have a couple of witnesses that will testify to the position of the cop and plan to photograph the area, showing distances etc.

Knock yourself out. They will "prove" nothing.

So is the 600ft thing a true statement and will it hold up in court in Colorado?

Held Up?

Yes, it will be held up... held up to ridicule. If the Judge is nice, he won't laugh at you too much.

Another favorite of mine is the old... "the front view of a motorcyclist is 90% leather, rubber, carbon fibre and glass, but only 10% metal... so how can the radar be accurate?" ...anyone had any luck with this gem?

You've got to be kidding. Do you honestly think radar only "sees" metal?

Ha ha ha haha

I think you should use that defense. Courtrooms tend to be dry, boring places, without much humor. It'll give the court staff a good belly laugh.

[willis34]

Originally Posted by DucMonsterMan

What is the name of your state? Colorado



Another favorite of mine is the old... "the front view of a motorcyclist is 90% leather, rubber, carbon fibre and glass, but only 10% metal... so how can the radar be accurate?" ...anyone had any luck with this gem?

I don't want to burst your bubble, but radar has no trouble getting a reading on leather, rubber, or plastic. A baseball is made of almost 100% leather , rubber, and a little bit of nylon and the radar has no problem getting an accurate reading on them.
I don't think I would try that argument in court. The rest of your arguement about the 600ft. thing I don't know the answer to that one, but I have never personally heard of it.