http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/ohio-news/estimates-ok-for-speeding-tickets-court-rules-741192.html
AP said: Ohio's highest court has ruled that a person may be convicted of speeding purely if it looked to a police officer that the motorist was going too fast.
I suppose its OK as long as I can estimate the amount I should pay based on my experience and training.
Taken from article comments:
Next step, estimated Blood Alcohol Levels to really bring in the cash.
would that be a no "Point" violation since they don't have proof of you speeding? I think it sucks, but if they would start doing this elsewhere, i would hope it doesn't add points...
"I saw the defendant was going pretty fast, your honor."
"Can you say exactly how fast?"
"Pretty fast, ma'am, like WHOOSH"
"I see."
Idiocracy gets closer every day.
I work with a professional electrical engineer and he has helped a couple people out of speeding tickets by proving the percent error in the case. He said in one case he proved 38% error in the radar gun reading because of the angle of attack and the over head power lines and.... and...
I think by the time he's done explaining all of the technical aspects of it everyones ready to give it anyways. 
Where's the damn ACLU when we REALLY need them?
oldsaw wrote: Where's the damn ACLU when we REALLY need them?
NAMBLA 
"Well, your honor... I had actual instrumentation right in front of me that clearly displayed that I was not speeding. Are we to accept the testimony of a bystander with no such data? I mean, even a radar gun can be off by as much as 10% - what are the odds the a mere mortal, even with sophisticated Act 120 training, could be more accurate than my speedometer?"
At least its an easy thing to verify. Take said officer and speed trap different cars at different speeds. If they (the cops) are consistently within 5 miles of actual speed I'd be impressed.
How'd they give speeding tickets before radar?
NYG95GA wrote: How'd they give speeding tickets *before* radar?
The magic of time over distance
NYG95GA wrote: How'd they give speeding tickets *before* radar?
They would sneak up behind you and pace you that way, or pace you on the feeder. Or just write you a ticket for whatever they felt like, much like they do today anyway.
Friend of mine got stopped on his bike recently. He idled through a school zone at 30 (the speed limit), then accelerated. Cop pulls him over. "I clocked you at 55 in a 30." "Show me the RADAR." "Well, maybe it was 45." "Show me the RADAR." "40, and I'm not going any lower." I guess the donut shop was closed.
Over here they don't have to show you the radar anymore.
Welcome to Ohio...
More reasons to avoid the nation's speed trap.
Georgia doesnt have to show you radar either.
My sister is a cop and I like to have the safety versus revenue conversation with her.
porksboy wrote: Georgia doesnt have to show you radar either. My sister is a cop and I like to have the safety versus revenue conversation with her.
If your sister's goal was to become a dutiful public servant whose prime purpose was to facilitate a money stream to her handlers, she must be real happy.
Or, she is terribly disappointed.
This makes me want to do a citizen's arrest the next time I see a cop doing 30 over while in pursuit of a doughnut.
This brings to mind the many court shows I watch where the case involves a car accident. One of the "witnesses" will swear that the person who caused the accident was speeding/travelling WAAAAY over the speed limit. Yet, the end result was only a bumper bruiser.
fastEddie wrote: http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/ohio-news/estimates-ok-for-speeding-tickets-court-rules-741192.htmlAP said: Ohio's highest court has ruled that a person may be convicted of speeding purely if it looked to a police officer that the motorist was going too fast.
" if the officer is trained, certified by a training academy, and experienced in watching for speeders. The court's 5-1 decision says independent verification of a driver's speed is not necessary."
This part magically got left off. Somehow a period got stuck on the end of your quote above, making it seem like a complete sentence. Not saying you deliberately quoted out of context, just that you definately quoted out of context.
Nor is this idea of visual by a cop new. Many a crime has been successfully prosecuted based soley on the visual observation by the cop. As in "I watched him steal that".
foxtrapper wrote: Nor is this idea of visual by a cop new. Many a crime has been successfully prosecuted based soley on the visual observation by the cop. As in "I watched him steal that".
"I watched him steal that" is a equivalent to "I saw him drive down the street" not "I saw him drive at 77 mph in a 65 zone"
No, it's the equivalent of saying "I saw him drive down the street at an excessive speed".
Many years ago a friend of mine got a speeding ticket in NC. The officer was going the opposite direction and turned to follow my friend who was then going at or below the speed limit. My friend was given a ticket for 65 in a 55. In court the officer testified that he could put his hand on the dashboard of his cruiser and tell from the vibrations how fast a car was going in the opposite direction. The judge found my friend guilty.
foxtrapper wrote: No, it's the equivalent of saying "I saw him drive down the street at an excessive speed".
The problem is stealing/not stealing is binary. You either saw him stealing, or you didn't
"At an excessive speed" isn't. There's clearly slow enough, clearly too fast, and a big fuzzy area in the middle. As such, his example was better than yours.
Until speeding tickets aren't a revenue stream you bet your ass I want better proof than some cop who far too often is sadly more of a tax collector than a cop just deciding I must have been speeding.
Remove the revenue stream aspect, and most of my objection goes away. Sure they'll still be wrong sometimes, but I bet they'd "magically" be wrong a lot less.
You'll need to log in to post.
