Sure you can beat a speeding ticket via radar!

I've always been told to hide mine once I've been pulled over if possible so that perhaps the officer may give me a break. Also if it is not known that you have one if it goes to court it is better that way "radar detector" doesn't get brought up in front of the judge, thus painting you as a habitual speeder.

 

I always wondering would happen in court in a situation like PeterS mentioned. Lets say you get a ticket but the officer is nice and cuts you a break by citing you for less than what you were going like PeterS's 70 vs 78. Could you to court and argue that the officer wasn't honest in recording your speed and try to get the ticket thrown out.

I was also wondering do the police keep some type of reciept of the radar which can be used as evidence in court? or is the officers testimony and recollection the only evidence most of the time?

 

I said you can't put a % rate on experience---Can you look at a person and tell how much driving experience they have???????? That is what I said.

 

Just because you can't measure it does not mean it is not important. In fact, experience or lack of experience is probably the *most* important factor in a crash. Just because you can measure the speed (sometimes) doesn't mean it contributed to the accident. That means an analysis based on the speed involved is meaningless. That was my point.

 

You are also wrong in that fines get attention and other forms of punishment don't. Or that loss of driving privileges or incarceration works. All of them make people think about how to beat the system. When the punishment is not seen as fitting the crime, people take matters into their own hands. Hence the huge industry in stealth technologies, radar and laser detectors, jammers, etc., etc. It is wrong to label ordinary, law abiding folk as criminals by setting low speed limits and sneaky radar traps. It is right to enforce safety. They are not directly related, but most law enforcement makes it into a direct link. It is simply not true. (Quote by 2000yellow360)


I at least gave some possible solutions. You can't whine about what YOU think works or doesn't w/o giving a solution to the problem. What do YOU recommend to stop aggressive/speeders???

You are also wrong in that you can attribute speed as a cause of a crash, but not inexperience. Half the time, the estimation of speed in a crash is either incorrect or completely impossible to determine from the evidence. Second, the car's safety devices, angle of impact, distance to decelerate to zero, occupant's neck angle and position, seat position and angle, steering wheel position and angle, all play an equally important role. You would be surprised at the serious injuries people suffer in 35mph crashes, and you would also be surprised at the number of people who walk away from 80 or 100 mph crashes. Speed is a raw, single measure. There's a million factors at play in any situation. To focus on speed alone is simply misguided, and serves nobody except the people who want to profit off speeding fines.(Quote by 2000yellow360)

How can you look at someone and determine their driving experience???? Please let me know it would make my job alot easier. You state "Half the time the estimation of speed is incorrect or impossible to determine." I say BS---With the CDR technology(black boxes), CRUSH technology, total station technology, it is alot easier than you think to determine speed. I am a certified crash reconstructionist, went to school for 3 months to become one and have investigated hundreds of crashes and what causes them. I am not surprised at anything. I have seen decapitations, missing limbs, dead children, FIRST hand--that is what I do for a living. I know what it takes and the factors that play in these situations. I won't pretend to be a defense attorney, because I have not been trained to be one. So please don't play reconstructionist if you don't have the schooling to back it up and after some of your statements, I can be assured you have NEVER been to a recon school or training.

 

Not once did I say is wasn't important-----I said it can't be measured.

 

Don't get defensive. No one is saying accident reconstruction is a bad thing. We are saying that focusing on speeding as a means of raising revenue is a bad thing. Do you or don't you agree with that? It does not matter to me either way. I will speak out against ill-advised public policy every time I see it. That's all.

 

Yes, but if it can't be measured, but is instumental in a crash (which you agree with) then how can the accident report be complete and compleletly valid? And if it's only partially valid, then how can you make policy based on such statistics without acknowledging that there is a gap in the analysis, which could lead to flawed findings and flawed policy. I don't know why you are taking it so personally. No one is accusing you of making the policy.

 

Perhaps the focus should be on the aggressive drivers, and not on the speeders? The two things are not connected. You can drive safely at 150 mph, and you can drive extremely unsafely at 65 mph. Traffic enforcement should reflect that reality and not pretend that 65 mph is a magic line that once crossed makes you a criminal and/or an unsafe driver.

 

But thinking that way---No crash report in the world has ever or will ever be correct, by not taking into account the experience of a driver---which CANNOT be measured. So in leau of the experience --which can not be measured--you have to base things on FACTS. If you are speeding, crossing center line, running stop signs, etc and a crash is caused by those driving behaviours they will reflect on the crash report. And yes I was getting a little defensive when you made statements like --in most crashes --- speeds are unattainable, which is not the case..
Bottom line everyone will have a difference in opinions and that always leads to discussions like these. I value your opinions and will say we have to agree to disagree--for the time being.

 

I just came back from Court and I really think this defense might work. They gave me the options of Guilty, Not Guilty, No Contest or Question and I pleaded Question. They took me in the back to speak to the prosecutors and I began to mention to him about seeing a Texas Law in the Texas Penal Code that requires motorists to drive at a "reasonable speed" when the majority of the traffic is going over the speed limit. He was suprised that I even know what's in the Penal code and quickly asked how I knew about that particular law and I mentioned to him that my girlfriend is a Law school student. Anyway long story short, he rescheduled my court date and told me to come back with my proof of Insurance and all my stuff researched. He even said that we would help me out on that defense and that it might possibly get me off. This is what I plan to say, hopefully it works:

Me: Your honor, the majority of the traffic was speeding and driving any less than what they were driving would pose a hazard to everyone else therefore I was required to drive at a 'reasonable speed".

Him: What is "reasonable" to you?

Me: The speed that I was going because any less would be "unreasonable" since it could possibly be a hazard!

LOL. Something along those lines. It's wierd though because if it were that easy EVERYONE would use it so something leads me to believe that it might be harder and more complicated than I think.

 

You are not taking into account how badly they want to make easy money. Since you are making waves, they might drop you and move on to easier pickings. Good work!

By the way, Guilty and No Contest or Guilty with an Explanation are exactly the same thing as far as what goes on the record, which would be....Guilty. So, don't be fooled into thinking it's a lesser degree of guilt. As for Question, I think that means Trial. Strange.

Best of luck.

 

Aureus, Art, 285...

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=81404&highlight=355+Crash

If you think that your speeding isn't a risk, write a comment on http://nicoleanddevin.com/

Part of my job finds me traveling on the highways a lot. It is a known fact that on the Ill/WI border, WI police target people with out of state plates. I was involved in a multi car fatal collision when a drunk ran a light and plowed into the oncomming lane I was in hitting me and the car next to me. I hardly ever speed and to be followed for 10 miles by a cop agitates me but I tollerate it. I have also gotten a ticket in similar Ill vs WI circumstances for not making a complete stop, ( as I idled forward to get a better view, ) and seen others hit in strange all of a sudden 15 mph dropping zones...

Instead of bantering with no direction and trying to prove a point never to be made, make a collective effort and state ways to get out of tickets such as one made from a biased point of view. Help an Fchatter who thinks he was targeted for "speeding" or failing to stop because of the car he was in or he stopped too far back from the line.

Speed can not be proven, ability of driver, safety features in cars, I think that one thread in the Chicago section puts all what you guys are trying to prove a real moot point and honestly, a real stupid conversation.

If anyone has so much energy to fight in a endless topic channel it into something productive. Hey lawyer, a scientist, help someone who was traveling to the Brian Redman festival in his 308 and got a ticket from a cop for going 32 30 yards before a 25 mph zone. Save your willy length and Im so right posts in your mind or in PMs. Help us all out instead.

RocketBoy

 

Roger, I hear they are getting GTOs in Baltimore.

Are you guys getting any GTOs too?

 

Who said speed isn't a risk? No one is saying we should all get to do 150mph right past school zones.

That is a completely separate matter from targeting speed in order to raise revenue, and using underhanded tricks like waiting in concealed locations and and "catching" people out right after sudden drops in the speed limit.

As for the rest of your rant, I don't understand what you are trying to say, or what you are asking for.

 

Wisconsin just passed a law that you may not travel in the left lane if you are not keeping up with traffic. Increased incidence of accidents cited...

Now this will get interesting, as I know many folks who drive EXACTLY the speed limit in the left lane....

So now what happens??? The granny driving 65 in the left lane gets ticketed as traffic flows around her at 80mph???

Seems like keeping up with the flow of traffic is a viable defense, especially in wisconsin!

 

Thats not what I'm saying......a city does include ticket revenue in the court budget, but they can only estimate how much money tickets will generate because they cannot tell an officer what kind of tickets to write or how many. What I was refering to is that officers do not write tickets for the purpose of making money.

 

Don't go for a drive in Germany then. Personally I felt quite safe in a volvo wagon doing 130 mph for extended periods of time.

 

Driving is a risk, at any speed. Increasing your speed doesn't increase that risk if you do so in the proper conditions. Driving poorly, in bad conditions at high speed. Now that’s plainly stupid and is apparently what Mr. Blain did. How that matters in a discussion concerning speed limits I'm really not sure. What Blain did was stupid and aggressive driving, he would be a menace in parking lots, in the city, on the freeway and every where else. He is the kind of person that the law needs to be able to affect more while leaving those who'd simply like to commute at a higher speed to do so.

I'm not petitioning for no speed limits on back roads and in the city where you don't know the conditions and don't know what’s behind the next corner. However, when the topic turns to thousand mile stretches of concrete freeway; speed limits deserve a very thorough look.

 

the quote that is in this post---is NOT mine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

How are we targeting speed to raise revenue. I have NO quotas---whether I write 0 tickets or 100 tickets a month. My supervisor doesn't tell me "Go out there and raise some money for the state guys." I get paid no matter what. I write citations based on the area, amount of traffic, complaints from CITIZENS---thats right complaints from CITIZENS. We have a complaint board that we fill out when citizens call in complaining about the speeders in a particular area. I guess I should tell them" Sir, I can't help you, people may think I am generating money for the state".
Underhanded tricks???? If I sit out in the open --people see me they slow down, I have done that many, many times just to slow down traffic. If I hide around a turn or over a bend, it's a underhanded trick?? If you are going the speed limit--you have nothing to worry about.
Do you get paid to defend clients for speeding??? So it is not OK for a speeder to get a fine, after THEY have broken the law. But it is OK for you to take their money to defend them on it???
True story---About 6 years ago-Local attorney gets off 19yr old kid 2 times for speeding. 3 months later, same kid SPEEDING on a back road loses control and strikes attorneys wife and child head on. Wife,child DEAD. The 19 was asked later about the previous tickets. He tells officer " I figured the attorney would get me out of it like he did before, so I wasn't worried about speeding and getting caught" The attorney commited suicide 2 years later. Wonder Why???? Just something to think about....