Dude, I posted every single word that was related to pacing… all the rest of the crap was regarding the 3 other grounds he tried to appeal upon.
Huh… Are you listening to yourself?
When an officer paces a vehicle, he get behind, next to or draws some sort of connection or reference to the vehicle he is pacing, speeds up (or slows down) until he can visually see that he is at the same speed as the other vehicle, then he glances down at his speedometer, reads the speed and makes a note of it.
That is what a PACE is!
The issue is nonexistent… i.e. there is not issue.
Wait, wait… FIRST: You’re suggesting that the trial court judge was wrong when he found the defendant guilty due to an invalid argument. Then the case went to the appeals court, where two judges issued a decision affirming the trial courts decision, and a third appellate judge concurred. All four of them are right, and yet you are right?
SECOND: you just said “that issue wasn’t addressed” so how could they be wrong about an issue that was not addressed!
Step back and read what's posted. Take a deep breath. Count to 1,000. Clearly you're too wrapped up in the outcome of the case and not what was argued. First, I never said anything about the trial court judge. Period. Second, the opinion in the appeal states a speed trap applies only to radar. ONLY RADAR. Not radar or any other electronic device capable of measuring speed such as LIDAR, no he said ONLY RADAR. That IS wrong on its face and in direct contradiction of black letter law. Now perhaps he meant radar and other electronic devices and referred to radar as a generic term. We don't know, but in reality it doesn't matter. The issue that wasn't raised is that the officer used an electronic device used to measure speed. If the appellant doesn't claim he did (or for all we know it was an older car with a mechanical speedometer), then its not a speed trap issue. His other somewhat offbeat arguments aside, thats why he lost. It's not up to the judges to be all knowing on all things. It's the appellant's responsibility to introduce evidence on his behalf. The burden is on him to show an electronic device was used, and he didn't. He didn't even argue the point. That doesn't mean the point is or would be invalid, it simply doesn't exist. If he had argued what I am attempting to do and got the same result, I wouldn't be here discussing it now.
I imagine the questioning went something like this:
It's a speedtrap.
Why is it a speed trap sir.
He was pacing me.
Pacing doesn't constitute a speed trap sir.
Uhh.....
Case closed. To make it a speed trap, one has to convice a judge that a speedometer is an electronic device. If one never even raises it as an issue, it'll never be ruled on. Let's face it, until somebody pointed it out to me on MY OWN THREAD_I_never knew it was an electronic device. I seriously doubt the appellant had ANY idea and its unlikely the judges do either. I doubt most non-mechanic types would.
Could it be that the point is moot? Invalid? Does not fall within the scope of what the legislature intended for it to mean? And therefore no one would consider it as a valid argument…
But then again, I shouldn’t be that critical… And I assure you that I’ll be the first to congratulate you if you do somehow manage to convince the court of its validity.
I think the intent of the legislature was VERY clear. Unfortunately for what you're trying to convince me of, intent of the law only comes into play when the law is ambiguous on its face. I don't see any ambiguity here, do you? It's pretty clear what the law says. A speedometer is an electronic device, ergo it falls under the speed trap law. If the legislature realizes the technology has progressed beyond the original terminology of the statute and they think the loophole should be closed, they will close it. These type of loopholes do pop up from time to time in the law as the world changes beyond the original written language of the statute.
Example: A few years ago, the Massachusetts law for responsible person for unpaid payroll taxes included sole proprietors, corporate officers, general partners, etc. It did NOT include members of an LLC. Why? LLCs didn't exist when the law was written. Unfortunately someone with a big mouth pointed it out to the legislature and a new statute was passed.
A judge might respond to that by saying then when the law was originally written, it did not include speedometers, and until someone makes an attempt to change it, the fact that it excludes them still stands.
I think that type of judicial opinion is more likely to be reversed the higher you go on the food chain, no? That's poor logic at best. It would effectively exclude anything other radar. It's not that speedometers were excluded when the law was written. It's that they were mechanical at the time and so not INCLUDED. Well now they're electronic and should be included.
Are you trying to say that a tire wearing by fractions of an inch might affect the accuracy of speedometer MORE than a satellite that is pinpointing your location from miles away?
Do you need to be educated on how both work? From Wikipedia: Speedometers are not totally accurate, and most speedometers have tolerances of some 10% plus or minus due to wear on tires as it occurs. Modern speedometers are said to be accurate within 10% but as this is legislated accuracy, this may not be entirely correct. This can make it difficult to accurately stay on the speed limits imposed; most countries allow for this known variance when using RADAR to measure speed, although levels of some 3 km/h or 3% are also used in areas of tough enforcement. This causes many arguments due to motorists complaining that they were not doing the speed as reported. Revenue is being increasingly blamed for these stricter measures. There are strict United Nations standards in place but it seems not being enforced leaving this matter in limbo for many countries. Excessive speedometer error after manufacture can come from several causes but most commonly is due to nonstandard tire diameter, in which case the
percent error = 100x("standard diameter"/"new diameter" - 1).
Nearly all tires now have their size shown as "T/A_W" on the side of the tire (See: Tire code), and the tire's
diameter in inches = TxA/1270 + W.
For example, a standard tire is "185/70R14" with diameter = 185x70/1270 + 14 = 24.196850 in. Another is "195/50R15" with 195x50/1270 + 15 = 22.677165 in. Replacing the first tire (and wheels) with the second (on 15" wheels), a speedometer reads 24.19*****22.67..=1.0670139 times the correct speed or 6.7% too high.
GPS: The position calculated by a GPS receiver requires the current time, the position of the satellite and the measured delay of the received signal. The position accuracy is primarily dependent on the satellite position and signal delay.
To measure the delay, the receiver compares the bit sequence received from the satellite with an internally generated version. By comparing the rising and trailing edges of the bit transitions, modern electronics can measure signal offset to within about one percent of a bit time, or approximately 10 nanoseconds for the C/A code. Since GPS signals propagate at the speed of light, this represents an error of about 3 meters.
Position accuracy can be improved by using the higher-chiprate P(Y) signal. Assuming the same one percent bit time accuracy, the high frequency P(Y) signal results in an accuracy of about 30 centimeters.
Electronics errors are one of several accuracy-degrading effects outlined in the table above. When taken together, autonomous civilian GPS horizontal position fixes are typically accurate to about 15 meters (50 ft). These effects also reduce the more precise P(Y) code's accuracy.
Bottom line, yes I would say GPS is more accurate, without a doubt. The margin of error is much smaller.