View Single Post
djmcmath djmcmath is offline
Registered
 
djmcmath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West of Seattle
Posts: 4,718
The ticket was negligent driving, second degree, claimed 91 in a 60 as taking an action that an otherwise reasonable and careful individual would not take (and I agree -- 91 in a 60 is d@#^ quick, and a totally unreasonable speed for overtaking a 50mph vehicle). After demonstrating that I could not have accelerated at the required rate (accel curves from Paul Frere and the Bentleys), I followed up with demonstrating that the use of a radar SMD to track a contact accelerating at 8mph/sec is outside the certified limits and effectively removes it from the CPL (yes, I had the MMPSfPTRSMDs from the NTIS) to show that. The judge said he didn't believe a word I had said, then stipulated into fact that I had a peak speed of 70mph. The accuracy of the 20 year old radar gun which hadn't been maintained for the last half of it's life is no longer particularly a question, nor is the presence of high voltage power lines, nor the likelihood of HV lines causing resonant interference at 90mph (as can be mathematically demonstrated, and was during the hearing).

Thanks, though, 84. Oh, right -- findlaw -- I couldn't find any useful traffic case law there (except Crawford v Washington, which didn't work because apparently the Supreme Court of the United States of America doesn't hold sway over Jefferson County, WA). If you have a better recommendation on how to search, or some tips on case names or numbers that I don't have, I'd be ecstatic. I mean, really, ecstatic.

Thanks for the help, and thanks to those who bothered to read the whole thing. I'll put this post out in hard-cover version later this week.


Dan
__________________
'86 911 (RIP March '05)
'17 Subaru CrossTrek
'99 911 (Adopt an unloved 996 from your local shelter today!)
Old 05-12-2004, 01:27 PM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #5 (permalink)