Speeding Ticket in PA by park ranger with wrong Robic Distance

[PROCONSTANTA]

What is the name of your state? Pennsylvania

Just received a ticket from a park ranger, allegedly going 45.9 in 25 mph zone. Don't think I was going that fast, but did not want to argue with him. The speed limit sign said 20, so I guess he cut me a little slack there. Now, the radar info on the ticket says:
Miles timed: .19
Secs timed: 1.49
With my calculations I get 459 mph. The speed is calculated at 45.90 by the officer. Do I have any grounds to try to dismiss this one, based on the wrong info (miles should have been documented as .019 not .19)?

All input would be greatly appreciated

 

[Zigner]

Can't hurt to try, but that is an easily correctable error.

 

[PROCONSTANTA]

Can't hurt to try, but that is an easily correctable error.

Not too familiar with the whole process. When the correction might take place? Assuming, I show up for the trial and present my case to the judge, will they just assume it was a typo and dismiss my attempt?

 

[FlyingRon]

I agree with your math. What's written on the ticket is largely immaterial. If he sticks to those numbers in court, you can certainly dispute them. as impossible. Understand that some PA magistrates are complete bastards and will find you guilty anyhow. It might take appealing up to someone with a brain to prevail.

 

[zddoodah]

the radar info on the ticket says:
Miles timed: .19
Secs timed: 1.49
With my calculations I get 459 mph.

Which tells you it's a rather obvious type (clearly should have said 14.9 seconds or .019 miles).

Do I have any grounds to try to dismiss this one, based on the wrong info (miles should have been documented as .019 not .19)?

No. Typographical errors (especially obvious ones) are not a basis for dismissal.

Assuming, I show up for the trial and present my case to the judge, will they just assume it was a typo and dismiss my attempt?

Likely (although no one here likely has any experience with the traffic court judges in Whoknowswhatsit County, PA).

 

[PROCONSTANTA]

Which tells you it's a rather obvious type (clearly should have said 14.9 seconds or .019 miles).



No. Typographical errors (especially obvious ones) are not a basis for dismissal.



Likely (although no one here likely has any experience with the traffic court judges in Whoknowswhatsit County, PA).

Makes sense. Thank you for your input!

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I think, but don't know for sure, the calculation is not made by simply doing the math with those two numbers.

The radar sends a receives the pulse at the speed of light and can make a speed calculation with just two pulses of the beam. After that, all the following pulses are just more data for a more accurate reading. The numbers are how long and for how far your car was tracked and measured.

 

[FlyingRon]

I think, but don't know for sure, the calculation is not made by simply doing the math with those two numbers.

It sure as hell is. ROBIC is nothing more than a glorified stopwatch with a simple calculator to change time/distance to speed.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

It sure as hell is. ROBIC is nothing more than a glorified stopwatch with a simple calculator to change time/distance to speed.

So the OP was incorrect when he said,

Now, the radar info on the ticket says:...

...and it was a VASCAR like a device?

 

[FlyingRon]

Calling it VASCAR-like is gracious. It is literally a stopwatch (the same ones we use at the NASCAR tracks to time laps). It has a place you can put in the distance and when you time something, it gives you the MPH. The other real stupidity is that the officers often don't have a clue what they're doing when they input distances bolluxing up the feet to thousandths of a mile calculation (most likey what happened here). Most likely he measured 100 feet between his landmarks.

Note if you're really good (and this came to me after spending night after night for years timing race cars), you can get down +/- a few hundredths of a second, but that's a lot of error when you're timing someting only taking 1.9 seconds (our laps were in the 15-20 second range). We had the advantage of clocking the car at the SAME POINT at the beginning end and of the timed lap. The parallax and other errors cancel out. We primarily use an electric eye to trip the clock, but we hand time it as a back up (in case the electric eye fails or something, usually an idiot driver who forgot to exit into the pits after his last lap, trips it at the wrong time).


In PA, only the State Police are allowed to have RADAR. Everybody else has to use a timer like VASCAR or ROBIC.

 

[PROCONSTANTA]

So the OP was incorrect when he said,


...and it was a VASCAR like a device?

Correct. I was incorrect to call it a radar section. It just has all the equipment info there.

 

[PROCONSTANTA]

Calling it VASCAR-like is gracious. It is literally a stopwatch (the same ones we use at the NASCAR tracks to time laps). It has a place you can put in the distance and when you time something, it gives you the MPH. The other real stupidity is that the officers often don't have a clue what they're doing when they input distances bolluxing up the feet to thousandths of a mile calculation (most likey what happened here). Most likely he measured 100 feet between his landmarks.

Note if you're really good (and this came to me after spending night after night for years timing race cars), you can get down +/- a few hundredths of a second, but that's a lot of error when you're timing someting only taking 1.9 seconds (our laps were in the 15-20 second range). We had the advantage of clocking the car at the SAME POINT at the beginning end and of the timed lap. The parallax and other errors cancel out. We primarily use an electric eye to trip the clock, but we hand time it as a back up (in case the electric eye fails or something, usually an idiot driver who forgot to exit into the pits after his last lap, trips it at the wrong time).


In PA, only the State Police are allowed to have RADAR. Everybody else has to use a timer like VASCAR or ROBIC.

That's another issue I had with his measurements. How accurate can you be in 1.49 seconds? Seems like a margin of error would be significant?

 

[FlyingRon]

If he was really well-trained and the landmarks were properly visible, he could get within 2%. Of course, 100' is not exactly .019 miles, so that enters in to the error.

 

[PROCONSTANTA]

If he was really well-trained and the landmarks were properly visible, he could get within 2%. Of course, 100' is not exactly .019 miles, so that enters in to the error.

Yeah, not sure how much stop watch training park rangers go through...seems like the budgets are really hurting, for them to be setting up speed traps like that. Been going to this park for at least 20 years, never had an issue.

 

[zddoodah]

Out of curiosity, how far over the speed limit do you believe you were driving?