WTF? Radar not needed for speeding tickets in Ohio!

[BBShark]

Lets try this. I should have made this a poll so let's do this:

People who think that visual estimation of speed is a good thing-DWncchs

People who think that visual estimation of speed is a bad thing-Everyone else

OK I keep looking at this poll comment of yours.
So your saying everyone at VM shares "your" opinion OR everyone "better" share your opinion ?

You don't read these threads before responding do you?

I'll make this simple. No one responding to this post (other than you) has voiced an opinion that visual estimation of speed is a good idea. Understand?

 

[DWncchs]

Lets try this. I should have made this a poll so let's do this:

People who think that visual estimation of speed is a good thing-DWncchs

People who think that visual estimation of speed is a bad thing-Everyone else

OK I keep looking at this poll comment of yours.
So your saying everyone at VM shares "your" opinion OR everyone "better" share your opinion ?

You don't read these threads before responding do you?

I'll make this simple. No one responding to this post (other than you) has voiced an opinion that visual estimation of speed is a good idea. Understand?

OK OK I'll shut up.

 

[Sar Skipper]

If you are an attorney, by me discussing this I'm probably going to learn something so please be easy on me.
A ticket doesn't mean your guilty,you have your day in court. When the cop is using radar you argue the accuracy of the radar unit and whatever else could effect the reading on the radar unit,environment,the time the cops been running radar and how many times the cop has had his tickets contested and so on.
When you go into court and its just the cops "word" that you were speeding its the COP that you target !!! This will open a very large door into the cops life,(drinks the night before,does he use Viagra?)he will be in court instead of on the street(someone has to cover his shift),even if the cop is good at estimating can you imagine every time they issue a ticket this way they could be in court AND now multiply that by 10 cops issuing tickets this way and the court will be overloaded with contested tickets.
First I doubt any cop will issue a ticket this way unless its absolutely necessary like a 50 in a school zone and I'm just guessing but the city is not going to push this because of the time (money) invested in getting a conviction will far exceed the fine (payoff). JMO

Wow. You are a tough sell!

The Ohio supreme cort ruling makes visual estimation of speed AS VALID proof of speeding. Exactly the same as radar evidence. No difference. So people are free to contest the visual evidence, exectly like they are free to contest the radar evidence currently. The courts won't be filled with any more people challanging these tickets than they are now. This is just like the seat belt law. It was a "no fine" warning when it was instituted and now it's a major money maker for Ohio (I think it's a $110 fine).

Lets try this. I should have made this a poll so let's do this:

People who think that visual estimation of speed is a good thing-DWncchs

People who think that visual estimation of speed is a bad thing-Everyone else

All the court has done, is make "visual estimation" a prima-facia case. Pretty much the same as radar/Lidar, and it still has to be defended in court if contested by the citizen (defendant/violator).

And yes, I can see the courts being overloaded with people contesting the violation, if for not other reason than to show thier disapproval for the means in which it was determined.
I'd be willing to sit there all night and pay the extra fine, just to make damned sure the judge had a splitting headache and little sleep for nights on end!!

What would likely happen would be a "conversation" or meeting of the minds, among various chiefs in the jurisdiction and this crap would stop
(been done before)

Wow. You are a tough sell!

Tough , yes but not impossible. In my defense I spend most of my day chasing automotive electrical nightmares so I can't take things at face value, as you know bubba has been most everywhere. If I don't allow my brain to go outside the box many of the problems I run into would never actually be diagnosed.

You have issues with the seat belt law ? Can you imagine how much not having that law would cost us taxpayers ?

The jury is still out on that. It hasn't been "law" and enforced long enough to reach a valid determination.

A similar arguement was made by the state and those in favor of helmet laws in Florida and a few other states. The statistics didn't bear them out and we now have multiple states that have no helmet laws. (I won't ride without, but it's my choice).

From a practical standpoint go to the west side of Dayton and sit outside the beer drive inns. These people are wearing their seat belts ,they are drinking , they have no insurance , they are wrecking on a regular basis,with their seatbelts on they don't end up in our local hospitals with me and you paying their hospital bills. Click it or Ticket works.
If my 19 year old daughter didn't fear a ticket she wouldn't buckle up,she has crashed 4 times and totaled 2 cars. ( her dumbass mother thinks its funny )

I think helmets should be a law.

As for the helmet laws, see my post above.

As to the beer joints, in a maroity of cases, it's not the drunk who gets injured or killed.

Instead of worrying about thier seatbelts, why not sit outside those places and watch the azzholes get into thier cars! Follow them down the road a bit, establish PC for the stop and the rest will likely be history

As for your daughter, I'm sorry to hear that. This is one thing that we drove home to our kids on a daily basis (even when going to the corner in the neighborhood). BUCKLE UP!!

They would scold me when I happen to forget.

to this day, law or otherwise, they always buckle up
I will admit, that the law does help "encourage" those who might otherwise not comply.

Lets try this. I should have made this a poll so let's do this:

People who think that visual estimation of speed is a good thing-DWncchs

People who think that visual estimation of speed is a bad thing-Everyone else

OK I keep looking at this poll comment of yours.
So your saying everyone at VM shares "your" opinion OR everyone "better" share your opinion ?

Lets try this. I should have made this a poll so let's do this:

People who think that visual estimation of speed is a good thing-DWncchs

People who think that visual estimation of speed is a bad thing-Everyone else

OK I keep looking at this poll comment of yours.
So your saying everyone at VM shares "your" opinion OR everyone "better" share your opinion ?

You don't read these threads before responding do you?

I'll make this simple. No one responding to this post (other than you) has voiced an opinion that visual estimation of speed is a good idea. Understand?

Lets try this. I should have made this a poll so let's do this:

People who think that visual estimation of speed is a good thing-DWncchs

People who think that visual estimation of speed is a bad thing-Everyone else

OK I keep looking at this poll comment of yours.
So your saying everyone at VM shares "your" opinion OR everyone "better" share your opinion ?

You don't read these threads before responding do you?

I'll make this simple. No one responding to this post (other than you) has voiced an opinion that visual estimation of speed is a good idea. Understand?

OK OK I'll shut up.

I didn't see where you were necessarily "for" the law.

regardless, don't give up so easily. It's interesting to see/hear others points of view on the matter:beer:

 

[00fxd]

Great story. I miss the old days. Didn't clog up the courts at the taxpayers expense, and a lesson learned.
To day the cop would be charged with assault and the parents would be outraged. Idiots.

 

[mrvette]

Great story. I miss the old days. Didn't clog up the courts at the taxpayers expense, and a lesson learned.
To day the cop would be charged with assault and the parents would be outraged. Idiots.

Got THAT right, I know I have told this little tale before, but not sure where....so here goes...

I had a large Pontiac Grandville convertible back when the kids were really young, long about '86 or so, they didn't like wearing seatbelts...so one day while on the freeway, they were climbing all over back there, the ex was as usual yelling at them to put on their seatbelts, and so I picked a clean/clear spot, looked at the ex and said hang on,.....

floored the brake pedal at some 60 mph.....two little bodies go bump/bump and flop....plenty of room on that floor back there......:clap:

a second later the little voice DADDY!!!......I turned and shouted, THAT is why you wear your damn SEATBELTS!!!!

after that is was always two clicks from the back seat....

:flash::devil:

 

[68/70Vette]

The California Highway Patrol isn't allowed to use radar. They eyeball all their speeding tickets.

The speed limit on the freeways here is 65 mpb. Unless there's heavy traffic, probably 2/3, or more, of the cars will be exceeding 65 mph. For the CHP, picking up speeders is pretty much like shooting fish in a barrel.

If they are tracking a car, the will stay far behind the car, and then look at their own cars speed as they drive to keep up with the tracked car, trying not to gain or fall back on the tracked car.

I do all my freeway driving on weekends, typically going 70 to 75, and occassionally going up to 80, either by accident, or passing or pulling away from another car. After 15 years of driving like this, I briefly speed up to 80 to pass a car going 70 to 75. It was, unknown to me, a tracked car. I got a speeding ticket. It was one of the few times I was driving my 08 C6. The police officer was a woman. I think she was surprised when she realized my and my wife's age. I think she was hoping to grap a younger guy.

 

[00fxd]

I'm still not sure about the women cop thing. In this case and most things automotive there's a sure handicap for us. A male cop would probably see things different. If you were 'mature' guy driving a Corvette he would probably look at it like a guy. Maybe appreciate it a little bit. Because there was absolutely no danger to anyone he may/would tell you to slow down, or not. A woman cop is more likely to be outraged and worried about you running over puppies or kittens with no appreciation for the situation. I always say that laws are guidelines, made to be interpeted by inteligent individuals responding to a situation - like 25 year old wreck exceeding the speed limit.
Talking to some old retired cops they wonder out loud who they send in to a bar fight etc. Probably not a women cop. But they get paid the same.
I know - again I say - I'm a dinosaur....

 

[mrvette]

Look, this whole thing about SPEED is a bunch of BS, the interstates were designed for safe travel up to 80 mph back in the 50's.....the fucking FIFTIES for Christsakes.....

modern cars/TIRES are good for cruising at 90+ easy....ASSuming traffic is not bumper to bumper and everyone forced into weaving past some damn Buick or Mercury in the left lane....

which bring up another pet peeve of mine...another thread....

:hissyfit:

 

[Bullshark]

Hey Larry, I think I see a opportunity here. Lets market a data acq system in Ohio that records speed over time based on GPS. That would provide the citizen with hard evidence to refute any officers claim. Even easier than fighting Radar or Ladar. In the mean time one could mount a camera looping on their Garmin display.

BTW, the law as presented here is :bullshit:. In the old days in Missouri the officer had to testify speed based on a pace. Otherwise it was Careless and Reckless driving.

Bullshark

 

[68/70Vette]

BTW, the law as presented here is :bullshit:. In the old days in Missouri the officer had to testify speed based on a pace. Otherwise it was Careless and Reckless driving.

Bullshark

You mean that if speeding couldn't be proven, the ticket was "downgraded" to careless and reckless driving?

My understanding that careless and reckless driving is a worse charge than speeding. From what I understand a reckless driving conviction can result in insurance cancellation which forces you to buy insurance from a high risk insurance pool which means punitive insurance rates.

Also, I think a speeding ticket, if not for too high a speed, gives you an option to sign up for traffic school thereby hiding the ticket from your insurance company. (California procedure). I don't think reckless driving gives you the traffic school option.

 

[Bullshark]

Now that you mention it, I think it was correctly refered to as "Careless and Imprudent". At any rate it was the lesser of two evils wrt the fine. I think the points may have been the same, can't remember.

 

[BBShark]

Hey Larry, I think I see a opportunity here. Lets market a data acq system in Ohio that records speed over time based on GPS. That would provide the citizen with hard evidence to refute any officers claim. Even easier than fighting Radar or Ladar. In the mean time one could mount a camera looping on their Garmin display.

BTW, the law as presented here is :bullshit:. In the old days in Missouri the officer had to testify speed based on a pace. Otherwise it was Careless and Reckless driving.

Bullshark

Bob, Good idea but, it has been my experience that the courts don't care what you have to say (or what "proof" you may have). Nothing trumps the officers word. Backed by the supreme court of Ohio of course :club: