My town now has white vans parked in places throughout the city that have UNMANNED RADARS. These things apparantly clock every car that goes by it. It, somehow, sends tickets to speeders. The speeders are known who they are because of a license plate.

Dude called into a radio station this morning and said he had recieved a speeding ticket from one of these. There was a motorcycle going the opposite direction in the picture that was sent to him. The catch is, the motorcycle didn't have a license plate. So, how does anyone know who was clocked? I think the dude has a good case and he said he would fight it. Win or lose, do we really want this type of crap?

Originally Posted by sgallan

Sorry, not in the mood for snarky - you'll have to play with somebody else.

Well, I tried.

Other, non-radar, means of determining speed is often by pace, which for the record is matching the speed of the target vehicle a car length away or so and 'eyeballing' that the gap between the target and the patrol car is not changing. The pace needs to be a reasonable distance which the court will decide but usually 100 yards or more is sufficient. There is/was no requirement to videotape the distance nor were any device needed to determine the distance between vehicles necessary. The court would accept my visual estimation.

I understand the dislike of an officer's visual estimation of speed being the sole evidence necessary to convict, but worries of how it will be abused is exaggerated. The courts in California could always accept it as long as you can convince the court, under the specific circumstances of the case, that the officer has the ability to do so. In the very, very few cases that I witnessed a visual estimation was accepted in court the estimation was for a speed well in excess of the posted safe speed or the maximum speed limit on a highway.

In one case the visual estimation was for a motorist cited for exceeding the max limit on Highway 101 (65 mph) for driving an estimated 85 +. In court the officer said he was on patrol driving at 55 mph when the motorist passed him at a high rate of speed. Because the offense is complete at 65 mph the court found him guilty and assigned a fine equivalent to traveling 10 mph over the limit. Now is that an outrageous decision or misuse of the CHP's judgement? It's reasonable.

Another example is mine personally. It was about 10 pm and I was approaching to stop at a red light in the City. A Porsche was stopped ahead of me in the left turn pocket as I rolling up behind him. The Porsche driver apparently didn't see me and when the light cycled giving him a green left arrow he lit up his tires and took off like a bat out of hell. He made the left turn but the weight transfer of his car made him slide from the #1 lane into the #2 lane almost colliding with a car legally in its position. The second car was forced up onto the curb. I estimated the Porsche's speed was now in excess of 40 mph in 25 mph zone. I chased after him with my supercharged Dodge Diplomat (lol) and he accelerated above 50 mph. I lit up my lights and called in a failure to yield. By this time I believe he saw me and took many left and rights through a residential neighborhood accelerating in excess of 40 mph after every turn. He took one turn too fast and skidded so I was able to close the gap enough that he stopped. I did not have enough evidence to testify he was evading because I feel he could claim in court he was just hot rodding and never truly knew I was there. While I have no doubt he was evading me I would have testified honestly that its possible he didn't know. The driver was actually a neurosurgeon at SF General (I think). I cited him of reckless and exhibition of speed.

The neurosurgeon driver contested the cite and we both gave testimony in court. The judge was known as a hard a$$ on both drivers and the cops. He was an equal opportunity a$$ chewer. Anyway the neurosurgeon had a semi-smart a$$ answer to one of the judge's questions. Based on my training and experience and the observations of driving, the judge ruled that my visual estimate of speed and other driving behaviors was sufficient to find the driver guilty of reckless driving and dismissed the exhibition of speed. The neurosurgeon let out a sarcastic sigh and the judge unloaded on him. He told the neurosurgeon that the maximum penalty for reckless (a misdemeanor) was six months in jail and $1000 fine and THAT was the sentence he imposed. Then the judge sarcastically sighed back asking, "Now what do you think of that?" The doctor stood stunned and said, "I'm...I'm overwhelmed." The judge chewed him a bit then suspended the sentence and told him that if he had one driving violation in the next six months he would reinstate the sentence. Now I think that's another applicable use of judgement and estimation of speed being accepted by the court.

RYou, digital or otherwise, unless the speedometer has been calibrated by an accepted facility or lab its reading holds little to no weight in court, at least in California that is.

Quinn14, while I accept it is legal for radar/camera cites being mailed to motorists, I frigging hate that idea both when I was working the street and now that I'm retired. I feel it's bad for the community and harms the relationship between the public and the law enforcement agency.

Originally Posted by pm01

Quinn14, while I accept it is legal for radar/camera cites being mailed to motorists, I frigging hate that idea both when I was working the street and now that I'm retired. I feel it's bad for the community and harms the relationship between the public and the law enforcement agency.

I agree. It makes people not like the police. And it is all just a money grab.

Originally Posted by Spider

Please share.

$pider, I'd be happy to pa$$ along a few $ugge$$tion$ if nece$$ary.