Speeding, 82/65 contestation question

[Maestro64]

And THAT is exactly why you will lose. All the rest is fluff. The officer clocked the other driver at 84, you say she was 5-8 mph faster than you. That puts you at 76-79 mph.
Now, tell me again how you weren't speeding?

The ticket says 82 not 76, and fine is base on 82 not 76, so the facts are wrong which make a world of difference unless he walks in and tells them he was doing 76 at which time they amend the ticket and fine to be 76. Remember never said he was not speeding just he was not going 82 and that is all that matters

 

[Zigner]

The ticket says 82 not 76, and fine is base on 82 not 76, so the facts are wrong which make a world of difference unless he walks in and tells them he was doing 76 at which time they amend the ticket and fine to be 76. Remember never said he was not speeding just he was not going 82 and that is all that matters

Ok, and when our OP pits his untrained estimation of speed against the officer's expert testimony, who do you think will win.

 

[CdwJava]

Also, I do not by the safety thing in all cases especial in CA where there are lots of officers on motorcycles and they are using hand held units which are battery operated, why they can not walk up to your car with the unit in hand, you can be guaranty that all LIDAR are hand held.

Serious safety issues ... NO officer wants to tie up his hands on the approach ... plus, he'd have to unplug the device from his bike - they operate with a jack to the bike's battery and are not generally run on battery even for those few units that DO have batteries. None of the devices operated by my agency or the local CHP are battery powered.

One last thing on this subject, and CdwJava, might even know about this, police are currently testing out systems which they can take pictures while moving and have it read your plate and run a report on the plate in real time, they will also be able to record your speed and have a picture of your plate and the speed you're going and the locations. you are probably 10 to 15 away from seeing these systems showing up all over the place, so welcome to 1984.

I hear about stuff all the time, but I don't take it seriously until someone actually deploys it successfully. Then, of course, there is the price element. We still don't have video cameras in the vast majority of law enforcement vehicles in CA because of the sheer expense in installation and maintenance, and THAT technology is well tested and commonly accepted. The money is just not there.

Since LIDAR is pretty new it might have been a verbal mistake on the officer part, do not put too much weight on that statement, plus he wrote a distance down so that means it was LIDAR.

I know many radar officers that estimate distance on radar so that note doesn't mean a lot. Our citations had a space for "distance" even before there WAS lidar.

Also, I believe in CA there is no judicial notice on LIDAR, what this means is the courts do not except it as being fact and a proven technology so you can challenge the accuracy of it and the state has to have expert witnesses contest to the fact it is accurate under the conditions it was used in your case, CdwJava can probably tell you if that is true, it is what I have read.

I would think there IS judicial notice, but I just don't know. I'll have to ask one of my radar/lidar officers next week.


- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

These are not turning out to be win-win. Reports are coming out now red-light cameras have not reduce accidents, the side impact one are down since people are not running a red light and hitting someone entering from the perpendicular direction, however, rear end one are up since people are slamming on the brake while the light is yellow and they do not want to be caught in the intersection after it turns red. Some communities are starting to shut them down because of this. All these did was exchange one bad behavior for another.

Serious injury numbers are down even in those few places where the fender benders are up.

I'd rather have a couple more dents than one broken skull.

- Carl

 

[Maestro64]

Serious safety issues ... NO officer wants to tie up his hands on the approach ... plus, he'd have to unplug the device from his bike - they operate with a jack to the bike's battery and are not generally run on battery even for those few units that DO have batteries. None of the devices operated by my agency or the local CHP are battery powered.

Ok, i'll give you that one, these days too many nuts on the road doing stupid things.

I hear about stuff all the time, but I don't take it seriously until someone actually deploys it successfully. Then, of course, there is the price element. We still don't have video cameras in the vast majority of law enforcement vehicles in CA because of the sheer expense in installation and maintenance, and THAT technology is well tested and commonly accepted. The money is just not there.

I work for one of the companies which supply much of this technology to the public safety sector, and it my understanding the money is coming from the Feds for homeland security and they want the locals to have this technology so they can track and locate people. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Maestro64]

Ok, and when our OP pits his untrained estimation of speed against the officer's expert testimony, who do you think will win.

This the exact problem, no one should go in and try give facts or even talk, They should just ask questions and break down the testimony. Everyone makes mistakes and it easy to show how mistakes were made.

But I agree, people go in and and try and say they know better offer their own estimates and have nothing to back up what they are saying

 

[CdwJava]

I work for one of the companies which supply much of this technology to the public safety sector, and it my understanding the money is coming from the Feds for homeland security and they want the locals to have this technology so they can track and locate people. I'll leave it at that.

We HEAR a lot ... too often the money for these toys does not materialize, or the matching funds, training and maintenance requirements, and associated mandates make them unpalatable.

We're still reeling from all the Homeland Security money that bought us WMD gear, supplies, equipment, etc., but did not pay one penny towards training or replacement ... most the stuff (suits, breathers, masks, etc.) have expired or otherwise become outdated and we could never afford to train in them as most the gear could not be replaced! So, we could have used it for training, but then we would not have had any for the real thing! Great Catch-22.

Practical application and affordability usually lags far behind availability. Then there is technology that is a monopoly - like the Taser, for instance. Taser has no competition and the prices have not appreciably dropped in 7 years because of that. Any new system using proprietary technology will likely be unaffordable by the majority of law enforcement agencies.

- Carl