Speeding Defense?

60 in a 30? Ouch!

Sorry to read that my friend!

Ouch is right....
That's going to hurt....

If that had been here in Arizona, it would be criminal speeding...Anything over 17 mph over the speed limit is criminal in Arizona...

Should have told him you were just trying to maintain a safe distance between you and the cars behind you....

i've ben lucky so far! My car is faster than a speeding ticket!
Tim

Beautifuly in-car shot Deeb. The new high-tech interior looks great.

As far as fighting the ticket goes ... There is a book available called "Fight that ticket in the province of Ontario" (paperback). It may be for the Province of Ontario but the tips could be equally applicable in Quebec.

I have successfully fought all my tickets using the techniques described in the book. For example: Normally, exceeding the speed limit must be substantiated over a fixed distance at a constant speed. (The accepted norm is 1/4 mile). This is done, so as to remove the defence argument of errors in the police measurement technique. eg. You can ask the policeman over what distance was the measurement and how many measurements were taken. You can argue that the movement by the radar, policecar, etc. in a non-steady state may have contributed to an erroneous reading on the part of the police (more and other details in the book).

In all cases it is worth while to take it to court. Usually the prosecutors would rather save the courts' time and offer you a plea-bargain. You can then negotiate a more acceptable penatly if you pled guilty.

I wish you luck.

Bohdan

Deeb,

Definitely worth fighting these things, my recent 'Exhibition of Speed' for breaking the wheels loose pulling away from a junction carried a $220 fine and a whopping 8 demerits. The lawyer got it reduced down to $90 and a speeding 5-10 over the limit (1 demerit). Yes it cost me $1,500 in Lawyers fees, but the alternative insurance increases on 5 cars would likely have been worse, besides which it was just plain wrong and you can't let the bastards beat you.

My experience is to get anywhere you need to work within the system (i.e. feed the system, it eats $$) and get a lawyer. On a previous passing in a 'no passing zone'. I tried to fight it myself and the cop just plain lied on the stand. Guess who the Judge beleived

Julian

Tell him your cruise controll was malfunctioning. Or that your speedo read kph not mph. Or that the light was in your eyes. A Pantera firend of mine was driving his car in SoCal, years ago. A couple too many "pops" at the local stand. He had just installed his Euro Speedometer because it is cool and reads 300kph. Bad if you have been drinking...

I just got caught 76 in a 60. It was a trap, the limit dropped and the Trooper was waiting. There were lots of tracks in the median where they were working the area. he said I HAD to come to court or have a lawyer there for me. It was 4 hours from home. 3 days later I got a letter from a law office. It seems if I send $350 to 450 they can get it reduced to a non moving violation. It ain't fair.....

Well, I have successfully defended many tickets. This video was just a first test of how to shoot in car. I plan to win this one. I just posted it because I loved the sound!

Anyhow, here's my planned presentation I will make to the court, whenever I get there:

SLIDE ONE
I have a google earth shot of the exact location where I was tricketed. I indicate my path, TURNING left onto this street, after stopping for a red light.

SLIDE 2
Here I show the location of the radar cop and indicate where I got stopped and ticketed by different cop down the road. All these are laid out correctly.

SLIDE 3
Now I indicate the google earth measuring tool to show the area that could possibly have been captured by radar, based on his position. I detail the area and define the minimum and maximum distance I could have travelled in this area.

SLIDE 4
Using the maximum distance, I then show a linear acceleration calculation formula to determine how fast I could possibly be going after turning onto the street until the furthest possible location where he could have got me on radar. The unknown is my speed at the end of the distance. The known factors I use are the max distance I could have travelled and the max speed possible.

SLIDE 5
To show the maximum speed possible, I refer to a Road and Track Test of a Detomaso GT5 - with a 0-60 time of 5.5. Based on the formula I use, it shows I would have needed another 150+ feet to reach the speed shown on radar.

SLIDE 6
Now all I have to do is show a video of my nav screen, as I travel that same maximum distance, with some decent engine noise, yet never reach the ticketd speed. That's the hard part. Based on initial tests yesterday, my car destroys the Road and Track 0-60 times, so it looks like I will have to use 1/4 throttle and add the sound effects later.

CLOSING:
In the end I will simply say, "Your honour, yes I was over the 30 mph speed limit. But not even a Ferrari could have reached 60 mph in that distance. As my screen indicates I was only going about 40, which is exactly what I claimed to the officer when he ticketed me. But he refused to look at my screen."

"This was the first time out with the car, and the first time I had used the new nav system. I tried to show the officer the recorded data which clearly indicated "Maximum Speed Recorded" which was only 45 mph but he ignored it claiming the other officer gave him a speed of 60 and that's all he knows. Clearly there is something wrong here."

THE VERDICT:
Assuming the judge never heard of a Detomaso, and the two cops who will be in court have never visited this PIBB, and no one else in court knows anything about physics or linear acceleration, I should walk away with 1 or 2 points and $150 instead of 5 and $400. And no legal fees either."

Don't worry. I'll come visit every now and then. Heck, I'll even look after your car for a few years.

$20.00 bucks and I'll keep my mouth SHUT!

So, that's your defense, huh?

I picked up a ticket yesterday, and am thinking about fighting it. I was at least 1 km from the cop, maybe more, when he zapped me with instant-on. The Valentine One went off and I slammed on the brakes, immediately bleeding off the 40 kph that I was over. I was convinced there was no way he could have gotten a reading on me from that distance. However, obviously I was wrong because he did pull me over and write me up. After he handed me the ticket, he asked if I have a radar detector. I answered "yes" and he said, "I thought so, because you slowed down quite a distance away." He could not have measured my (rapidly declining) speed for more than a second or two at a kilometer's distance.

Do I have a chance?

Peter I have no experience with cases involving laser, but you could easily win a case based on radar. Here's why....

ALL manufacturers of radar equipment specify that the police agency must run so many seconds of "history" on your speed in order to verify the readings were not erroneous. If you reduced your speed quick enough and the officer was unable to collect data for the time specified by the radar manufacturer, you have the ticket beat. If memory serves me, that time is normally around 20 to 30 seconds, but it varies a bit from manufacturer to manufacturer.

So you contact the police agency and find out what make and model of radar equipment they use. Bring the written instructions from the manufacturer to court, specifying data must be collected for a certain number of seconds. Present this to the judge. You then ask the arresting officer to present his history for your speed. Case closed, you win.

There are books and web sites that cover this in much more detail.

Here in California another method used to beat speeding tickets involves the "radar survey" for the road in question. The law stipulates that in order for the police to use radar, the road must be "surveyed" every so many months to insure that radar can be operated withour interference on that section of road. Governments being what they are, there is never enough budget to keep up with those road surveys, they are almost always out of date. So you pull the survey records for the road in question, bring a copy of the vehicle code specifying the road must be surveyed every so many months, and prove to the judge the road's survey is out of date, by law, they have no case against you. I have no idea if similar laws are in force in British Columbia.

Whatever you do, never ever admit to an officer how fast you were going, if asked just tell them you're not sure. They take notes and record your replies to their questions, and will use them against you in court.

George

In New York ..they only want the money .. If you go to your court date and see the cop before the court ... they always show up before court and meet with the people. He will negociate the ticket for no points ... but you have to pay the FULL BOAT on the fines ... unless you have a curtouesy card ... then your free to go when he pulls you over.

Mr. Berman, Very interesting senerio you describe to the court. We all understand the perfrmance ratings of the GT5S. However the car that was tested in Road and Track is fitted with model year factory installed engine. It would so please the court if you could describe any modifications that your car may have. It is obvious to the court that in 1985 cars were not equipped with GPS systems. Perhaps someone has changed your BORE, STROKE, and COMPRESSION RATIO! IS THIS THE CASE MR. BERMAN! Can't you just cop a plea bargin and not have to appear? Your gonners man!

quote:

Mr. Berman, ...It would so please the court if you could describe any modifications that your car may have.

"MODIFICATIONS??? Why, my car is totally stock! - Well, OK, the gas cap is totally stock..."

So long, Dude.

Deeb,
Was it radar or laser? What were the road conditions (drizzle, clear)? Same questions for you Peter.

Blaine

In NY, even with Ladar, the officer is required to observe the vehicle for a minimum distance.

I'm thinking 1/4 mile but I wanna say 1/2 mile.

This is another technicalaty where if you can prove that the distance was lessthen required, then it is a dismissal.

The problem in NY is that some of these infractions become misdomeanors because of the extent of the violation. The term is aggrevated violation. Those the DA gets involved in and doesn't want to negotiate anything and you are better off with an attorney.

Try $600 for the attorneys appearance to plead, $1,800 to represent you before trial and $2800 if it goes to trial. Plus expenses, cost of expert whitnesses, etc.

It gets a little pricey. If you can get it for no points and 6 hours of safety classes, take the deal.

Incidentally, F.Lee Bailey has gotten himself off, read as case dismissed, on three DWI cases that I know of. It isn't really that hard to do, but there are pitfalls all ova da place!

Peter, David - I too was zapped the other day .. except mine was with a camera. A measly 6 kph over the city street limit netted me a 15 euro fine and no points. Then, for the ride home ... I'm cruising the autobahn at 130mph in the Bimmer..and it was completely legal. Go figure.

No matter what they say, it's not about justice...It's about your money and that's all they want. Someone has to continually feed the big machine.

quote:

Originally posted by lastpushbutton:
I just got caught 76 in a 60. It was a trap, the limit dropped and the Trooper was waiting. There were lots of tracks in the median where they were working the area. he said I HAD to come to court or have a lawyer there for me. It was 4 hours from home. 3 days later I got a letter from a law office. It seems if I send $350 to 450 they can get it reduced to a non moving violation. It ain't fair.....

Man... that's pretty David...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Charlton:
"MODIFICATIONS??? Why, my car is totally stock! - Well, OK, the gas cap is totally stock..."

quote:

ALL manufacturers of radar equipment specify that the police agency must run so many seconds of "history" on your speed in order to verify the readings were not erroneous. If you reduced your speed quick enough and the officer was unable to collect data for the time specified by the radar manufacturer, you have the ticket beat. If memory serves me, that time is normally around 20 to 30 seconds, but it varies a bit from manufacturer to manufacturer.

I was told if you slam on the brakes and slow to well below the speed limit, it will cause the radar to throw a 'false' as it is trying to determine a speed over a fixed time.

I haven't put it to the test, YMMV.

George
Thats interesting info.

I got a ticket a number of months ago (89 in a 55). I came over an off camber sweeping left as he was coming up the opposite way so he was pointing right at me and bam...all over but the crying. I immediately scrubbed speed but he flipped a "U" turn right away and on came the lights.

Based on what you were saying about history should I have fought it?

Miles

Blaine - It was sunny and clear. The ticket says RADAR - 101.5 kph in a 50 kph zone.

Coz - Yes, that pic Mark posted sure is pretty. Things always look great in pictures. But when I open up the rear deck all I see is hours of work to do along with a sore back and many bleeding knuckles. So I just close it up, get in and put the hammer down (and sometimes get speeding tickets).

LPB - C'mon, do you really think my defense is weak? Any (ex)police dept folks here wanna give me an expert opinion on my defense strategy?

quote:

Originally posted by Fahrenheit351:
...should I have fought it...

Yes. Buy one of the books or go to one of the web sites, the message is unanimous, most speeding tickets based on radar are beat-able. Law enforcement does not use the radar equipment as specified by the manufacturer. They rely on the ignorance of the public to pay up without a fight.

cowboy from hell

Every time I have shown up in court to try and beat or reduce a speeding offence, the case begins with the prosecution coming over and showing me their detailed record of calibration dates, times, prep and specs. Then smugly grinning and asking if I want to proceed with a defense.

I have never attacked the equipment. I use logical arguments to put doubt in the judge's mind.

They are intentionally intimidating you.

Even if the officer didn't really calibrate the radar equipment the day you were cited, the calibration documentation could have been falsified the morning of the court date. There's really no way to beat them based on calibration. People used to beat them that way 20 years ago, they learned their lessons in that respect.

Just tell them you hope they are prepared to present a history of your speed for the time specified by the manufacturer.

In this case, there's no way that could have happened, since you only peaked at that speed for moment, right?

Perfect Cowboy! Thanks. That is just what I need to add...

That sounds good but how do radar guns manage to catch the speed of a baseball in mere seconds?

The requirement to take readings for several seconds (a history) is based upon the manufacturer's ability to guarantee the accuracy of the measurement. The devices can measure speed instantaneously, but the accuracy of the measurement is based upon many factors, like the relative motion of the radar device compared to the vehicle its measuring, the angle at which the radar device is relative to the motion of the vehicle, etc. Conditions for measurement are not ideal and quite variable. So the manufacturers specify that the measurement is reliable ONLY if the cops get so many seconds of consistent reading.

The radar at the baseball game is tri-pod mounted, immobile, and the moving object is traveling almost directly toward the instrument. The conditions are almost ideal.

cowboy from hell

quote:

Originally posted by PanteraTurbo:
Deeb,
Was it radar or laser? What were the road conditions (drizzle, clear)? Same questions for you Peter.

Blaine

Blaine:

It was clear and sunny, so no mitigating factor there. Also, there was no other traffic. It was just me and the cop going the opposite direction on a straight section of a two lane country road.

quote:
ALL manufacturers of radar equipment specify that the police agency must run so many seconds of "history" on your speed in order to verify the readings were not erroneous. If you reduced your speed quick enough and the officer was unable to collect data for the time specified by the radar manufacturer, you have the ticket beat. If memory serves me, that time is normally around 20 to 30 seconds, but it varies a bit from manufacturer to manufacturer.


"I was told if you slam on the brakes and slow to well below the speed limit, it will cause the radar to throw a 'false' as it is trying to determine a speed over a fixed time."

Guys:

I have a Valentine One. I hit the brakes as hard as I could the instant it went off, and was concentrating on staying straight under such extreme braking so I actually slowed to below the limit before realizing it and then coming back up. My guess is that he had me for less than two or three seconds before I was at or below the limit. I will ask the detachment for the make of the radar gun and see if there is a requirement for a minimum time or distance that I should have been observed for. Unless the cop lies, then I should be good to go. I will also check to see if there is a requirement here in BC for them to check the road for interference.

Curiously, tickets here in BC do not state what speed they clocked you at, and the cop did not tell me. I wonder if that makes any difference? This is the first time I have ever received a ticket and not been informed of the speed I was clocked at. I wonder if he got a "false" and did not want to admit it.

He did ask me if I had a radar detector, which I admitted because they are legal here, and that will come out in court. I worry that I will lose any sympathy the judge may have because of it. However, it could also work for me, because he then went on to say, "I thought so, because you slowed down quite a distance away."

I have one remaining question. Is there a maximum range for the typical radar gun? As I wrote previously, I was at least one kilometer away from the cop when he zapped me. He was barely a spec on the horizon. I really wonder if he could have sorted me out from the clutter at that range. Does anybody know how these guns work and if they can reliably get a reading at that range? Can I somehow prove how far he was away or do I have to rely on his honesty?

If there was more than one moving object (car) on the road, the radar equipment would not have been able to sort your car out from amongst the others at that range. Laser can be pin point accurate, not radar. If there is more than one vehicle on the road the cops assume the radar is detecting the speed of the closest vehicle, or the vehicle that enters the range of the radar first. In reality, it can be the largest or flattest vehicle (think Peterbuilt) that gets detected. The shape of a Pantera, or any exotic, is not very radar friendly from the front. Its all very "iffy" and that's why it is easy to beat if you come to court equipped with the proper info for the judge.

I've never heard of anyone being tagged 1/2 mile away with radar. You'll need to consult the manufacturer's spec, and the books or web sites on the subject. There are experts out there who can give you the straight dope. I've shared about as much as I know on the subject. One point I want to get across to everyone, law enforcement relies upon the ignorance of the public in regards to their use of radar based speed measurement. If you call them on their methods, you're case will most likely be dismissed.

I'm sure the best defense will vary state by state and provence by provence, depending upon how their laws are written and how their legal systems view the subjects of speeding and radar.

cowboy from hell

The Stalker Pro Radar gun will acquire a reading from a car at 6000 ft in about 1/100th of a second. These are the manufacturer specs under "ideal" conditions, but even if they are optimistic, I can't see how any radar unit would require more than half a second to get a reading.

I think the best way to fight this one is to prove (as DEEB plans) using math and specs that the car could not have reached the ticketed speed in the distance available.

Police here use LTI Marksman or the UltraLyte laser speed guns. These two only requre one shot to give an accurate reading as they take 42 readings and average them. If 5 or more pulses are invalid the device errors out which is why the quick deccel might help as this would throw off the measurement. However, all of this happens in .3 seconds so unless you see him before he shoots you youre not going to have time to brake. As the gun can take a reading in .3 seconds this would in fact allow an officer to get three separate reading in under a second. Pretty hard to beat in court. These units can also take a reading up to 3500 feet away but the laser size at 1000 feet is 3 feet in diameter so I imagine with that math it would be 9 feet at 3000 feet which might be an argumnt point if there were other cars on the road. All units are tested before and after shifts as per MFG specs and case law states that as long as these tests are done the reading is acceptable in court. Once again good luck. Radar equpment is rarely used anymore because of the time it takes and the large inacuracy if any other cars are on the road.

P.S. Im not a cop but am quite intimate with one.

Blaine

I've beat 5 radar speeding tickets. I understand laser is a whole new ball game, and more difficult to beat. I've only recently observed the California Highway Patrol parked and using laser, twice so far this year, once I almost got busted. Up to this point the CHP always had the little cone shaped radar sensor mounted on their front bumper, and the majority are still using that system.

Fun laser story (this happened about 2 months ago):

I came around a blind corner on the freeway I drive daily to work, exceeding the speed limit by a "bit". Parked on the side of the road, standing outside their patrol car was a CHP officer aiming a laser gun right at me. I passed by and looked in the rear view mirror, I observed the officer open the door of their patrol car, throw the laser gun on the seat and enter the vehicle. The chase was on!

Not too far beyond where the officer was standing was another blind corner in the freeway, and just around the blind corner was an off ramp. So instead of slowing down, I put the pedal to the metal and headed for the off ramp. I exited the freeway, and entered onto the road that parallels the freeway. Out my window I observed the CHP officer speed by, still on the freeway, beyond the off ramp, lights flashing, trying to catch up with me.

Go to the web site of your favorite Radar or Lidar speed measuring devices and try to download the owners manual. You won't be able to because you needed a password that is only given to law enforcement. The whole system relies upon the ignorance of the public.

In David's & Peter's situation the speed measurements were based on radar, not lidar.

The only radar speed detector "spec" of any consequence is how much history is specified by the manufacturer. That information is in the users manual, the manual they won't allow you to view or download without a law enforcement password. It may be that the new radar stuff won't give the officer a "pass" until a sufficient amount of good data (i.e. stable measurements) have been collected. So the history defense may be a thing of the past with the newest equipment.

Do you know why the law enforcement agencies are switching to laser? Because its harder to fight the tickets. More revenue! That's the only reason. There is no evidence that the incidents of speeding are on the rise, requiring an expenditure for better equipment. It just bothers them that a few people fight and win each year, they consider that lost revenue. They don't like to loose court cases against everyday Joes. If the goal was simply to get people to slow down and obey the speed laws, all they would have to do is increase visibility, get more officers on the road where they can be seen. When they are hiding, waiting to catch speeders, the intention is not to enforce law, but to write tickets, generate revenue. Its not the officers fault, they are doing what they've been told to do. Its the policy makers, the politicians.

My recommendation is still to go to the web sites that specialize in beating speeding tickets:

http://myspeedticket.com/

http://www.laserveil.com/speeding/ticket/how-to-beat/

http://www.tipmra.com/

http://www.beatmyspeedingticket.com/

http://www.magma.ca/~fyst/

http://www.beattheticket.net/

http://www.xcopper.com/

http://www.motorists.org/info/speeding_tickets.html

http://www.worldlawdirect.com/article/903/Fighting_a_speeding_ticket.html

http://www.paynoticket.com/

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/traffic_tickets/speeding_ticket.html

http://www.roadwarriors.ca/

The internet is loaded with web sites like these.

cowboy from hell

Deeb, Peter

Peter

You probably know already that it is not a good idea to admit you have a radar detector in your car whether it is legal or not. The reason the officer asked this of you was because he could not get a constant speed reading over some time to support his position. You confounded that by putting on the brakes after your detector went off. As a counter point, the prosecution will argue, "That this is be best speed reading they got because you were using a radar detector. So, why did you change your speed if you were not speeding and why did you use a radar detector if you abide by the speed limit?" In my opinion, you will need to address these arguments.

Deeb,

I have been following the thread and I figure its time to wade in. George has excellent comments and should be fully considered. The book I referred to, covers much of the discussion - including the points about calibration, distance, time to get an accurate speed reading. Haven't seen all the http links but they look good.

With regard to your defence: After I received my very first speeding ticket in Toronto, I consulted with a lawyer. They said I should present a defence similar to what you have outlined. Which I did successfully. At the time, the high tech gear your car has, was not available so I had to use some of the arguments George mentioned. A word of caution, what I was told is that "Road and Track" cannot be used as an authoratative source for data in a court on its own. Backing it up by your in car shot is perfect.
There is one thing that I would repectfully add to your defence. I would also say something like: "The radar reading was taken at a time when I was accelerating. Acceleration, being a non-steady state where speed changes with time and distance, introduces a number of variables that can make a radar or laser speed reading not entirely accurate. In light of the evidence presented, it is not surprising to me that there is some question and doubt over the accuracy of the prosections' data."
So in my opinion your defence is super. It does what my lawyer suggested, uses physics, and physical data to creat doubt in the mind of the judge. So its up to the judge of the day on how it will go. Personally, your defence brings a smile to my engineering face. Well done.

Just a comment, George Dzioba, a neighbour and friend, who just retired from the crown prosecutors office gives me advice from time to time. I recall a discussion of the Highway Traffic Act and wondered why it was that the defendant seems to be put in a position of proving innocence (being assumed guilty) rather than being assumed innocent. His answer: "The Highway Traffic Act is written that way!".

HTH (Hope This Helps)

Good luck

Bohdan

Update

I am aging while this defence goes on and I'm losing interest in going beck to court. Even though I like the fight, hanging around the courthouse for hours and hours waiting for my 20 minutes can get real old real fast.

In discussion with my lawyer I opted to settle. My 5 points and $560 will be negotiated to 2 points and $130 (plus a few hundred K to the lawyer). Anyhow, it started out fun, but I'm just to busy to waste more time on this. Maybe I would be more aggressively involved if I was about to lose my licence (again). But my driving record and my conscience are absolutely clear.

Next big ticket I'm going to try this one:

For most of us it is not the fine that is the problem. It is the demerit points and what the insurance industry will do to you if you get enough points against you.

I have NOT tried this myself but I know two guys that swear by it.

When you get the ticket. Sign it and mail in the payment by check only ADD an additional 10 dollars to the amount. The courts will realize you have overpaid and mail a refund for the 10 dollars. DONT cash the refund. If the accounting department has an outstanding financial issue they will not send the case number for closure. No closure, No conviction, No points. Apparantly you can keep the conviction and points off the books pretty much indefinately.

I have no idea if a stunt like this will work in the U.S.

If it really does work, it's a pretty slick way to keep a clean driving record.
Doug M

It's certainly worth the $10 to see if it works.