Radar gun operator's manual

[Superman]

I have another story.

My wife, daughter and her friend were driving through a small town. They were stopped. My wife asked the officer "How fast was I going?" The officer's response was "This must be your lucky day.....my radar gun was turned off." He goes back to his cruiser and returns with a ticket for going 45 in a 35. His notes (we requested and received a copy) said clearly, in several different ways, that he determined her speed by radar. On court day, the prosecutor, after hearing what my wife and daughter's testimony was going to sound like, asked the judge to dismiss the charge.

Policemen are not infallible. Sure, private sector workers are, but public servants are not.

[Porsche_monkey]

I'm shocked that a police officer would do that!

[silverwhaletail]

Originally posted by Christien
How is it one person's word vs. another is enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Because a civilized society, based on laws, demands it.

[KFC911]

Originally posted by silverwhaletail
Because a civilized society, based on laws, demands it.

Yet I've had a LEO lie in his testimony (to a charge I was going to (and did) plead guilty to). You may be honest, but too many LEOs aren't, and that's why we have (other) laws and procedures that are set up to ensure that these "demands" are met. One other thing...I doubt seriously that most could estimate speeds in a valid "scientific test" with any decent statistical probabilty that would pass the "smell test". Even if "some" could, I'd bet others would embarrass you with their inabilty...what about them?

[silverwhaletail]

Originally posted by KC911
Yet I've had a LEO lie in his testimony (to a charge I was going to (and did) plead guilty to). You may be honest, but too many LEOs aren't, and that's why we have (other) laws and procedures that are set up to ensure that these "demands" are met. One other thing...I doubt seriously that most could estimate speeds in a valid "scientific test" with any decent statistical probabilty that would pass the "smell test". Even if "some" could, I'd bet others would embarrass you with their inabilty...what about them?

Brilliant post.

Believe it or not, but when the Founding Fathers collaborated, debated and then drafted the Constitution of the United States, they cared very little about your myopic little life and all of your little life experiences that inevitably begin with the word "I."

They cared more about the survival of the Republic, the "Good of the Whole" and much less about the "individual." The Bill of Rights was an afterthought.

Our legal system is one of statutes. To simplify for you (and it sounds like you need simplification) , there are big crimes, medium sized crimes and little crimes.

The bigger the crime, the higher the burden of proof that the State must show that you "did it."

Your speeding ticket is a little crime. Get over it. Society cares not about the "injustice carried out by the State against you."

Is it paramount to the survival of our way of life that a police officer be able to estimate with EXACT accuracy the difference between a vehicle going 60 mph or 65 mph in a 45 mph zone??? Do we really care that the Cop is or isnt able to prove it through a "scientific test?"

I would submit to you that it is not, and that we (the citizenry) do not think that it is. What we care about is that we dont get T-Boned by some jack-A## running 62.5 mph in a 45 mph zone in his BMW (while talking on his cell phone and balancing his Starbucks between his legs) because he made a lane change as we were pulling out of our kids school parking lot.

You (and me) might like to drive a little bit faster than the flow of traffic. But the reality is that we piss off the vast majority of the VOTING population when we do it. And these are the people who elect the people who write and implement public policy.

You are a hypocrite because you fein innocence and express outrage when you get caught speeding.

I am a hypocrite because I drive as fast as I want to and then use my position to avoid an enforcement action when I get caught speeding.

The fact is, we were both speeding. And even if we weren't speeding AT THAT INSTANT, we WERE speeding just 1/2 a mile back. Rejoice in the fact that you "got away with it" the 999 times prior to getting the ticket.

[silverwhaletail]

Originally posted by KC911
Yet I've had a LEO lie in his testimony (to a charge I was going to (and did) plead guilty to). You may be honest, but too many LEOs aren't, and that's why we have (other) laws and procedures that are set up to ensure that these "demands" are met. One other thing...I doubt seriously that most could estimate speeds in a valid "scientific test" with any decent statistical probability that would pass the "smell test". Even if "some" could, I'd bet others would embarrass you with their inability...what about them?

Brilliant post.

Believe it or not, but when the Founding Fathers collaborated, debated and then drafted the Constitution of the United States, they cared very little about your myopic little life and all of your little life experiences that inevitably begin with the word "I."

They cared more about the survival of the Republic, the "Good of the Whole" and much less about the "individual." The Bill of Rights was an afterthought.

Our legal system is one of statutes. To simplify for you (and it sounds like you need simplification) , there are big crimes, medium sized crimes and little crimes.

The bigger the crime, the higher the burden of proof that the State must show that you "did it."

Your speeding ticket is a little crime. Get over it. Society cares not about the "injustice carried out by the State against you."

Is it paramount to the survival of our way of life that a police officer be able to estimate with EXACT accuracy the difference between a vehicle going 60 mph or 65 mph in a 45 mph zone??? Do we really care that the Cop is or isnt able to prove it through a "scientific test?"

I would submit to you that it is not, and that we (the citizenry) do not think that it is. What we care about is that we dont get T-Boned by some jack-A## running 62.5 mph in a 45 mph zone in his BMW (while talking on his cell phone and balancing his Starbucks between his legs) because he made a lane change as we were pulling out of our kids school parking lot.

You (and me) might like to drive a little bit faster than the flow of traffic. But the reality is that we piss off the vast majority of the VOTING population when we do it. And these are the people who elect the people who write and implement public policy.

You are a hypocrite because you feign innocence and express outrage when you get caught speeding.

I am a hypocrite because I drive as fast as I want to and then use my position to avoid an enforcement action when I get caught speeding.

The fact is, we were both speeding. And even if we weren't speeding AT THAT INSTANT, we WERE speeding just 1/2 a mile back. Rejoice in the fact that you "got away with it" the 999 times prior to getting the ticket.

[Christien]

Originally posted by silverwhaletail
What we care about is that we dont get T-Boned by some jack-A## running 62.5 mph in a 45 mph zone in his BMW (while talking on his cell phone and balancing his Starbucks between his legs) because he made a lane change as we were pulling out of our kids school parking lot.

This is the thing, though. What you describe here is a danger to society, clearly. But you've added many more elements of danger than just speed. I simply don't believe that speed in and of itself is dangerous. Hell, that's what track driving is all about - using speed safely and understanding the car's dynamics while you're doing it. It's what you're doing while going fast that makes things dangerous, but in 95% of our daily driving, so other factors make driving just as dangerous even when done within the speed limit. Again I come back to the analogy to guns - in and of themselves, they're harmless. It's what you do with them and how responsibly they're handled.

Speeding tickets in general are a cash cow, and we all know it. Cops know it, drivers know it, judges know it. Therefore, people will fight it, and use whatever means are at our disposal to do so. If the system is set up unfairly, then the system should expect the entire arsenal available to be used against it.

You know what? If speed is really that dangerous than up the demerit point charges and drop the cash charges. Make it more like drunk driving - license suspensions, jail time, etc. Then maybe people will take it seriously.

[Porsche_monkey]

Too politcally charged. I resign from this thread. I will speed when I feel like, and deal with it the way I see fit. I will also rationalize it the way I want to.

[djmcmath]

Originally posted by Christien
Speeding tickets in general are a cash cow, and we all know it.

+1. The story described above isn't about speed, it's about the other factors. But cops aren't generally looking for other factors, they're looking for speed. (I know there are exceptions -- I have a friend who cruises in an unmarked watching for idiots. But he's the exception, not the rule.) It isn't a crime to drink *$ while driving, and most places haven't banned cell phone use while driving. Every day, I see people pulling inane stunts on the on-ramp, or in the merge lane, or anywhere else on the commute, in front of police officers, but they're not speeding, so it's ok. Every day in the Hampton Roads area, it's considered "normal" to have one accident at Ft. Eustice, and another at Greenbrier, then two others somewhere else. Less than that is a "good traffic day," more than that is a little unusual, but not a lot unusual. If it rains, double the numbers. If it's extra sunny, double the number. Drivers are terrible.

If safe driving was the issue, we'd shovel money into programs to educate drivers, and measure our success in the number of accidents on the road each month. (Which is, off the top of my head, more people each month nationwide than we've lost in Iraq in the last several years, but ... nevermind...) We'd offer state-funded driving classes that actually taught people how to drive, rather than simply explaining to them what the signs mean, or how to parallel park. Driver's tests would be hard, and there wouldn't be quite so many drivers, because getting a driver's license wouldn't be just a function of waiting in some line for the requisite period of time.

The issue isn't, and never has been, safety while driving. The issue that we take offense at is that it's a tax levied under the name of "safe driving." Because the focus of the process is revenue, not safe driving, the legal process surrounding it is a sham, and we get upset about that. That's natural.

Unfortunately, nobody cares enough about it to elect someone who even claims they'll fix it. Instead, we vote on things that matter more to us, and the traffic tax just continues.

[Christien]

Extremely well put. Thanks. Much better stated that my attempt!

[Dennis Kalma]

Originally posted by djmcmath
+1.

If safe driving was the issue, we'd shovel money into programs to educate drivers, and measure our success in the number of accidents on the road each month. We'd offer state-funded driving classes that actually taught people how to drive, rather than simply explaining to them what the signs mean, or how to parallel park. Driver's tests would be hard, and there wouldn't be quite so many drivers, because getting a driver's license wouldn't be just a function of waiting in some line for the requisite period of time.

Oh, you mean we'd do it the European way?

Interesting factoid....I spent the month of April in Holland, drove around the place in rush hour, traffic was unbelievably busy, road system off of the main routes is full of blind corners, multiple entrances, signs all over the place....and guess what....did not see one traffic accident. Not a fender bender, nothing. I am sure they occur, but I suspect the frequency is far lower than in North America.

The difference? In Canada I can confidently say that my driving is above average in terms of awareness and safety....in Holland, I feel like I barely make the grade and am usually the one holding things up while I figure out what to do....

Dennis

[KFC911]

Originally posted by silverwhaletail
Our legal system is one of statutes. To simplify for you (and it sounds like you need simplification) , there are big crimes, medium sized crimes and little crimes.

The bigger the crime, the higher the burden of proof that the State must show that you "did it."

Your speeding ticket is a little crime. Get over it. Society cares not about the "injustice carried out by the State against you."

Is it paramount to the survival of our way of life that a police officer be able to estimate with EXACT accuracy the difference between a vehicle going 60 mph or 65 mph in a 45 mph zone??? Do we really care that the Cop is or isnt able to prove it through a "scientific test?"

Thank you, but I don't need simplification, and I really don't mind paying for legitimate speeding tickets. I've gotten out of several over the years, and have also paid a few with no qualms (and all of them have for going less than 12 over, so we're not talking endangerment here.) You are absolutely correct that "speeding is a little crime...." but having a LEO commit perjury (and it sure seemed to me, that he was following his usual canned testimony/routine, in a case I was pleading guilty to) also taught me a huge lesson about (at least one LEO) in your profession. I'm sorry, but issueing speeding tickets for less than 10 over while REAL driving dangers are ignored is bs. Yes, we still have some Barney Fife's around here (catch them on a bad day, and 5 over will get you cited), that go by the book

[Porsche-O-Phile]

It's all about money - any "public safety" benefit is unintended and incidental at best. How many times does this need to be said/proven?

Subpoena the g-damn radar manual and get rid of this nonsense once and for all.

[Porsche_monkey]

I think he just wanted an operators manual...

[silverwhaletail]

Originally posted by Christien

Speeding tickets in general are a cash cow, and we all know it. Cops know it, drivers know it, judges know it.

Not in California.

California Cities recieve less than 15% of the fine amount for traffic citations. A typical $241 speeding ticket nets the city about $12 bucks. Yipee.

Traffic enforcement, money wise, is a loser for California cities. They HAVE to fund it because the citizens DEMAND it. They dont complain about murders, they dont complain about robberies, they dont complain about burglaries. They complain about SPEEDERS and BUMS.

SPECIFICALLY, it costs 3 hours of overtime ( $144.19 ) for me to show up for court, even if I'm only there for 3 minutes.

Add into that the cost of the court room, the judge/commissioner, the bailiff(s), a translator, the cost of the clerks to process the ticket at the police department and then again at the county courts building, and you'll see that it is a LOSER.

I don't get how you guys think that the "Evil Government" is getting rich off of this "traffic ticket enterprise."

My advice? Contest your ticket. Maybe the cop has plans to go to the river the day that he is supposed to be in court on your ticket.

[silverwhaletail]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
Subpoena the g-damn radar manual and get rid of this nonsense once and for all.

hmmmmm. Maybe you guys could recommend your "beat the ticket by demanding a radar manual" strategy to the American Trucking Association. I'm sure that none of the 5000 lawyers who work for the trucking industry have ever thought of this "loophole." LOL

OR

write one of those "Fight your Speeding Ticket in Court and WIN!" books, sell it on EBay and use the profits to buy yourself an F430!

You guys are a crack-up.

[Superman]

Silverwhaletail, like it or not here are my positions:

* I admire police officers and am grateful for their service.
* Traffic enforcement = speeding tickets = nothing but a joke. And as such, I'm not going to take it seriously or respect it. If it were about safety, we motorists would notice and we would respect that. It's not. You know it and I know it. At least....you SHOULD know it, but that's a bitter pill to swallow if you're wearing the badge.
* Police officers being able to accurately "estimate" a vehicle's speed by simple visual observation........falls in to the joke category.
* Police officers' unreliable visual estimates of vehicles' speeds are not going to get my respect. If judges are in the habit of pretending they are accurate to help perpetuate the joke we call "traffic enforcement," then that is sad. And my respect is still withheld.
* But again, I am grateful for the actual public and motoring safety efforts of our police officers, and for the other unpleasant and dangerous services they perform. My hat is off. My respect would certainly increase if the joke we call "traffic enforcement" were taken a bit seriously.



I see very dangerous behavior and conditions on the roadway each and every day. No kidding, I've seen police officers follow cars for miles that have one working tail light or one working brake light.....and not do anything. I've seen cars with no working brake lights. I've seen cars doing 40 on the freeway. I've seen a car at dusk on the freeway being towed by another car using a tow strap and NOBODY WAS IN THE CAR IN TOW. Motorists are not afraid of being pulled over for anything except speeding. SPEEDING is the only motoring law, I guess. Aside from speeding, it's a FREE FOR ALL.



So.....I can see you're defensive and I would be too. But you don't get a "pass." You assert those speeding tickets are so vitally important that courts should pretend that police officers can estimate speed visually and are always correct in their subjective conclusions. I'm not buying it.

[Noah930]

Originally posted by Superman

I see very dangerous behavior and conditions on the roadway each and every day. No kidding, I've seen police officers follow cars for miles that have one working tail light or one working brake light.....and not do anything. I've seen cars with no working brake lights. I've seen cars doing 40 on the freeway. I've seen a car at dusk on the freeway being towed by another car using a tow strap and NOBODY WAS IN THE CAR IN TOW. Motorists are not afraid of being pulled over for anything except speeding. SPEEDING is the only motoring law, I guess. Aside from speeding, it's a FREE FOR ALL.

+1 All the other rules of the road seem to be forgotten unless there's actually been an accident. Then, suddenly, failure to yield the right of way, to use turn signals, to follow at safe distances, etc. become violations. Speeding may be the easiest (most objective) thing to enforce. It's a lot more objective to point at a laser/radar gun and say, "hey, you were breaking the law," than it is to point at objective evidence that someone was driving like a dangerous jerk. But LEOs shouldn't kid themselves and think that speeding's really the most dangerous thing going on out there.

[Noah930]

What we care about is that we dont get T-Boned by some jack-A## running 62.5 mph in a 45 mph zone in his BMW (while talking on his cell phone and balancing his Starbucks between his legs) because he made a lane change as we were pulling out of our kids school parking lot.

Good points about the relative importance (or lack thereof) of speeding in the grand scheme of life. However, I would submit that while speed is a contributing factor to the above scenario, inattention is a much bigger factor. Well, that and poor judgement. Same hypothetical accident would have occurred (with said numnuts Bimmer) had he been traveling 45 mph...because he wasn't paying attention to his driving and the traffic patterns around him. There's no way of proving I'm right/you're right. But c'mon, ask people who have a clue about driving, and I think the majority will side with me. However, it's a lot harder to prove inattention and poor judgement in a court of law, than it is speeding.

You (and me) might like to drive a little bit faster than the flow of traffic. But the reality is that we piss off the vast majority of the VOTING population when we do it. And these are the people who elect the people who write and implement public policy.

Now you're talking about separate things. Going faster than the flow of traffic is one issue. (Actually, to split hairs, how much faster to constitute safety significance is another debatable point.) But what about when the overall flow of traffic is already faster than the posted speed limit? You must admit, that's almost a universal phenomenon (given decent traffic/lighting/road/visibility/weather conditions). When the average speed is higher than the posted limit, to a certain extent, hasn't the populace unofficially spoken? And when's the last time you saw any politician list, amongst his/her planks, speeding control as a major concern? Speeding may be a leading reason for the calls you get at the precinct/barracks. But to say that this equates to what the voting public wants more than anything else is not the same thing.

You are a hypocrite because you feign innocence and express outrage when you get caught speeding.

Hey, I don't feign innocence, and I complain all the time about the crappy state of driving going on.

I am a hypocrite because I drive as fast as I want to and then use my position to avoid an enforcement action when I get caught speeding.

Thanks for at least being honest. I've lurked on LEO forums where no one admitted to speeding. Personally, I don't begrudge an LEO's ability to flash a badge to get out of a ticket (within reason). For all the crap that LEOs have to put up with, it's a small perk in the grand scheme of things. However, there is the larger matter of insurance fraud that goes on as an indirect result. After all, insurance rates are based in part upon driving record. LEOs (and sometimes their family) have artificially cleaner records than the rest of the population. So they pay less for car insurance, as they're more "dangerous" drivers than their records would suggest. So the rest of the population shoulders a proportionately larger share of the car insurance premium pie. Not necessarily a small financial deal in states like mine, where your record is kept on file for 6 years.

The fact is, we were both speeding. And even if we weren't speeding AT THAT INSTANT, we WERE speeding just 1/2 a mile back. Rejoice in the fact that you "got away with it" the 999 times prior to getting the ticket.

Fair 'nuff. But there's still ridiculous hypocrisy going on. Perpetrated by both sides.

Would like to thank you, silver, for explaining some of the finances involved when a ticket does get fought.

[scottbombedout]

Originally posted by Highlander179
I was under the impression that radars aren't the primary evidence and are only to be used as a back up reference to what the officer saw. they are trained to approximate your speed by eye to within a couple miles per hour an are tested frequently(unless its just a towny) for accuracy. in court, the officer will say something to the effect of, "I saw him speeding at x mph and the radar confirmed it."

Sorry, that is a load of rubbish. So if I am doing 120 a cop can guess my speed to within a couple of miles an hour???