Speeding Ticket Information (stopwatch) - Pennsylvania

[Shadow6934]

Hello All,

First post to the forums. I used some information from the forum (especially Maestro64's posts) to help fight (unsuccessfully, mind you) a recent speeding ticket in Pennsylvania. I thought I would give back to the community/others by posting my research/findings - maybe it can provide some use to someone else in the future...

Background: 1/2 mile from my house I was clocked (Robic stopwatch) doing 49.1 MPH in a 35 zone (3.37 sec over 0.046 miles). The officer wrote the ticket for 40 in a 35 and noted the distance, time, and speed which all were listed or calculated to be 49.1 MPH. I drive a louder, flashy, yellow car that attracts bad attention and know I was not driving 49.1 MPH as indicated. I was timed between a fence post and mailbox that both sit about 5 feet off the far side (as viewed from the officer's location) of the road.

The trial: the cop asked the judge to change the ticket to 49.1 (twice). Judge denied the request (twice). I presented what I thought was a good case (see below), albeit technical and somewhat scattered. Judge said I did a great job on my homework but still found me guilty of 5 over.

Learned at the trial: Identified the marks the officer used to start and stop the watch (fence post and mailbox); in his testimony, he said he started before I reached the first mark and stopped after I passed the second mark - not "crossing the lines", so to speak. The officer thought the distance was 247 feet and not the 242.88 as calculated from the 0.046 miles; I have since learned that Google Earth calculates the distance as 235 feet between his two marks. He last calculated the distance 6 years ago and is SURE that nothing has changed since then (new fence, moved mailbox). He was sitting roughly 100 feet back from the road I was traveling on. I learned the officer has never had his reaction time tested or passed a "short course" as described later.

Conclusion: debating whether or not to refine my case and take it to the appeals court. 5 MPH over in PA carries no points, although the fine was $120. I think the appeal filing is $35. I can't get over how much room for error there is in the method used to calculate my speed. In hindsight, I would have put my argument better into layman's terms and created most of my argument during the cross examination vs. the defense presentation (getting him to make my point always looks better than trying to prove it myself). I'm welcome to everyone's comments/critiques of the information I am presenting and recommendations going forward...

Case Presented:

* Parallax - Oxford English dictionary identifies parallax as "apparent difference of orientation of an object viewed along two different lines of sight"; presented example of speedometer in car when viewed head on vs. viewed from the front, passenger seat which gives two different readings; without a line painted on the road, the only way the officer could have precisely known when I crossed the marked point is by my vehicle obscuring the mark or having the mark reappear from behind my vehicle. Additionally, the roadway would not have been visible at the second mark due to a small ridge running in the grass on the near side of the road.
* Geometry - In the Driver's Guide to Police Radar, Craig (author) wrote... TDC (time distance computer) manufacturers and the National Transportation Safety Administration (NHTS) guidelines all say that a 200-foot distance between marks is sufficient, provided the officer is parked at an angle, that he's at least 300 feet from the road being monitored and the speed limit is 40mph or lower. But they also caution that only officers who've been specially trained in "short course" operation should use a 200-foot distance. Everyone else is too likely to screw up... With that said, the reason for the recommendations is that the geometry allows for too much slop. Sitting 100 feet back from the road the officers line of site to the two marks is too great of an angle from perpendicular. Further, the distance between the marks on the far side of the road is 243 feet, but the distance on the near side of the road based on his viewing angle (using tangents, et al) is more like 200 feet. Due to parallax, the only way for him to precisely know when I have crossed the line (hopefully established earlier) is when I obstruct the view of the mark or the mark reappears from behind my vehicle, then he has actually just calculated my speed over 200 to 214 feet (length of vehicle is 14 feet) and not the proposed 243. Basically, there is 29 to 43 feet of guessing when I have passed the line based on his line of sight.
* Officer Training - no doubt that I was barking up the wrong tree, but I asked the officer if he had ever had his reaction time tested and if he had ever received training to use a Robic device on a "short course" as recommended by the NHTS. Both answers were no.
* Reaction Time/False Start Combination - The officer was older (50-60ish). The average simple reaction time for a male of that age to a visual stimulus is roughly .325 seconds. Obviously, one might think an operator would be late to start and late to finish giving the same net result - not so fast. Professional athletes are highly trained/disciplined individuals. Offensive lineman in football, swimmers, and track and field stars all occasionally false start. The average NFL football game in 2008 had 2.55 false starts. Should be able to get the cop to admit it is possible that he could have false started - although I doubt any officer will...
* Combination of unknown distance and possibility of reaction time/false start creates potential for over 30% error; in which case my speed recorded at 49.1 on another day could have been recorded at 34.37 or anywhere in between (and probably further out). Given that information and the possibility that the evidence should have shown that I was doing no more than 10 MPH over, the case should be dismissed according to PA 3368 (c) (4) - "No person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraphs (2) and (3) unless the speed recorded is six or more miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. Furthermore, no person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) in an area where the legal speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour if the speed recorded is less than ten miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. This paragraph shall not apply to evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (2) or (3) within a school zone or an active work zone."
* Technicalities - I reviewed the documents the officer brought to the court room - all items were originals and not copies and everything was up to date.


So, I think that's roughly it. Sorry for the long post, hope this helps...

References:

1. http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/show...1&postcount=17
2. http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms.*****chapter33.pdf
3. Parallax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4. http://scientific-child-prodigy.blog...f-subject.html
5. Visual Expert Human Factors: Driver Reaction Time
6. Literature Review on Reaction Time
7. Reaction Times and Sprint False Starts
8. http://www.boston.com/sports/footbal...start_sta.html
9. http://www.radardetector.net/forums/...eful-info.html
10. Der, Geoff & Deary, Ian, "Age and Sex Differences in Reaction Time in Adulthood: Results From the United Kingdom Health and Lifestyle Survey", Psychology and Aging; 2006 Vol 21, No 1, 62-73
11. http://www.worldlawdirect.com/articl...ng_ticket.html

Note - I am not a lawyer and am not offering legal advice.

 

[Zigner]

{useless info}...but still found me guilty of 5 over.{useless info}

Thanks for the update.

 

[Maestro64]

Sounds like you did a good job, 5 over no points is the standard for fighting a ticket, since the court believe most people fight them due to points.

Just so you know PA does not presently require officer to be train on speed enforcement, so that does not matter and they courts for not care if the officer has any clue what he is doing.

It was good to focus on the distance, interesting the officer said he measure it 6 yrs ago, should have asked him what did he measure it with and was it calibrate as it clearly state in section 3362 of the vehicle code. It also said those timing strips must be calibrate every 60 days along with the equipment used to measure the speed. Did the officer bring the original copies of the cal cert for the stop watch.

You still did a good job.

 

[Shadow6934]

SNIP

Just so you know PA does not presently require officer to be train on speed enforcement, so that does not matter and they courts for not care if the officer has any clue what he is doing.

It was good to focus on the distance, interesting the officer said he measure it 6 yrs ago, should have asked him what did he measure it with and was it calibrate as it clearly state in section 3362 of the vehicle code. It also said those timing strips must be calibrate every 60 days along with the equipment used to measure the speed. Did the officer bring the original copies of the cal cert for the stop watch.

You still did a good job.

Thanks Maestro. I used a lot of information from your posts all over the internet.

I understood the officer need not be trained, but still asked the questions to go along with the NHTS information and reaction time defense.

Officer said the distance was measured six years ago by VASCAR. He presented all original copies of the cal cert and device registration.

You said, "those timing strips must be calibrate every 60 days along with the equipment used to measure the speed." Can you elaborate? I didn't find anything in the code that said the timing strips (assuming mailbox and fence post in my situation) had to be calibrated every 60 days.

Do you think it is worth the time (and money) on the appeal?

 

[Zigner]

Maestro-
Op was found guilty of exactly what he was charged with. 40 in a 35.

 

[Shadow6934]

Maestro-
Op was found guilty of exactly what he was charged with. 40 in a 35.

That is correct. I am not posting to brag about results but rather share information that might be useful to others. If you don't appreciate it, then just move on.

 

[Zigner]

That is correct. I am not posting to brag about results but rather share information that might be useful to others. If you don't appreciate it, then just move on.

Oh brother


Maestro was saying you did a good job because you ended up with a 5 over. I was merely pointing out that you started out with a 5 over.

 

[Maestro64]

Thanks Maestro. I used a lot of information from your posts all over the internet.

I understood the officer need not be trained, but still asked the questions to go along with the NHTS information and reaction time defense.

Officer said the distance was measured six years ago by VASCAR. He presented all original copies of the cal cert and device registration.

You said, "those timing strips must be calibrate every 60 days along with the equipment used to measure the speed." Can you elaborate? I didn't find anything in the code that said the timing strips (assuming mailbox and fence post in my situation) had to be calibrated every 60 days.

Do you think it is worth the time (and money) on the appeal?

I misstated the section it was 3368

(d) Classification, approval and testing of mechanical, electrical and electronic devices <snip> ... The certification and calibration of electronic devices under subsection (c)(3) shall also include the certification and calibration of all equipment, timing strips and other devices which are actually used with the particular electronic device being certified and calibrated. Electronic devices commonly referred to as electronic speed meters or radar shall have been tested for accuracy within a period of one year prior to the alleged violation. Other devices shall have been tested for accuracy within a period of 60 days prior to the alleged violation. A certificate from the station showing that the calibration and test were made within the required period and that the device was accurate shall be competent and prima facie evidence of those facts in every proceeding.

So the officer is claiming he used his VASCAR unit to measure the distance 6 yrs ago, when that is done the VASCAR unit stores that distance and displays it, so he might have written it down and keep using it. However as the code says the timing marks must be cal too, he could have simply measured it again with his VASCAR unit, but he was lazy. But you brought up the point about the office could not prove those two points did not move over the last 6 yrs years and the court choose to ignore that possibility and reasonable doubt.

You also brought up the point that a ticket can not be written in PA unless your 10 over so the officer violated that law, that is why he attempted to change the ticket in court, Zigner has no clue about this, as well as the officer wrote you for 5 over since he knew that you probably were not going 49. He probably knew you were over 35, but know he can not write a ticket unless he can prove 45, and figure you had no clue and would not fight the ticket since it was a no point ticket anyway.


In PA you can only appeal on legal grounds, not the verdict, you would need to identify a legal ground which was not follow at your hearing. Then you could appeal and get a new trial.

 

[HighwayMan]

You need to start proof reading your posts before you hit that "Submit Reply" button. They make for torturous reading.

 

[LSCAP]

HighwayMan said, "

 

[LSCAP]

HighwayMan said, " You need to start proof reading your posts before you hit that "Submit Reply" button. They make for torturous reading."

So torturous that I tend to skim over them and make mistakes.
I haven't seen you make a mistake yet. So don't complain.