Speeding Ticket Defense vs. pacing

"Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/7/2005 1:11 PM, jaybird wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>
>>>A common defense against pacing I found is to challenge
>>>patrol car's speedometer's calibration.
>>>
>>
>> Let's look at the whole picture here first. Were you actually speeding
>> and does the citation accurately reflect what you were honestly doing?
>
> What does that matter?

LOL... every freakin thing on the citation.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

I heard that I've an option here - pick up traffic school. But just
feeling
uneasy about it... Who's trying to get away? Me or the cop?

I heard that I've an option here - pick up traffic school. But just
feeling
uneasy about it... Who's trying to get away? Me or the cop?

Mine is an imported car - a relatively new (2003) Honda Accord. Do
you mean that the speedometer's reading on my car is higher than
the actual speed?

Mine is an imported car - a relatively new (2003) Honda Accord. Do
you mean that the speedometer's reading on my car is higher than
the actual speed?

On 7 Jan 2005 23:09:40 -0800, wrote:

>Are you speaking from experience in California? I thought there's a
>Basic Speed Law that I can use (as long as I can show my speed
>is safe). Don't know how yet.
>I still don't know how he cited me for 55mph!

In California, there are two types of speed limit: prima facie and
absolute. The absolute speed limits are the freeway speed limits
posted "Maximim Speed" and a few others. Most others, posted "Speed
Limit", are prima facie "Basic Speed Law" limits.

You can make an argument that it was safe to drive faster than a prima
facie speed limit. It is a longshot, but you can make it. Only under
really unusual circumstances will it succeed. In particular, the "it
was clear, and there was nobody else on the road" kind of argument is
a nonstarter, and "everybody else was driving that fast" is likewise.

You can't argue at all that it was safe to drive faster than a
"Maximum Speed" limit. Maybe you have a good argument, it doesn't
matter. The court won't give it any credence.

--
Chris Green

On 7 Jan 2005 23:09:40 -0800, wrote:

>Are you speaking from experience in California? I thought there's a
>Basic Speed Law that I can use (as long as I can show my speed
>is safe). Don't know how yet.
>I still don't know how he cited me for 55mph!

In California, there are two types of speed limit: prima facie and
absolute. The absolute speed limits are the freeway speed limits
posted "Maximim Speed" and a few others. Most others, posted "Speed
Limit", are prima facie "Basic Speed Law" limits.

You can make an argument that it was safe to drive faster than a prima
facie speed limit. It is a longshot, but you can make it. Only under
really unusual circumstances will it succeed. In particular, the "it
was clear, and there was nobody else on the road" kind of argument is
a nonstarter, and "everybody else was driving that fast" is likewise.

You can't argue at all that it was safe to drive faster than a
"Maximum Speed" limit. Maybe you have a good argument, it doesn't
matter. The court won't give it any credence.

--
Chris Green

On 7 Jan 2005 23:13:32 -0800, wrote:

>If it's my words against the cop's, without any witness, why would I
>need
>to prove my innocence (shouldn't I be presumed innocent?)? How does
>it work? If my verdict and that of the cop's are different, it's
>possible that
>one of us is lying. But why do we (or the judge) assumes that cops
>won't
>ever lie?

Your presumption of innocence means that the prosecution has to prove
its case (in California, beyond a reasonable doubt). The officer's
testimony, properly supported by things like radar or speedometer
calibration, will be proof beyond a reasonable doubt unless you offer
something better than a bare assertion that he was mistaken or lying.

It doesn't matter whether you doubt it. What matters is whether the
judge doubts it. The judge will give the officer credence because it
is the officer's job to determine whether or not somebody is speeding.
Unrefuted, that will be enough to convict.

--
Chris Green

On 7 Jan 2005 23:13:32 -0800, wrote:

>If it's my words against the cop's, without any witness, why would I
>need
>to prove my innocence (shouldn't I be presumed innocent?)? How does
>it work? If my verdict and that of the cop's are different, it's
>possible that
>one of us is lying. But why do we (or the judge) assumes that cops
>won't
>ever lie?

Your presumption of innocence means that the prosecution has to prove
its case (in California, beyond a reasonable doubt). The officer's
testimony, properly supported by things like radar or speedometer
calibration, will be proof beyond a reasonable doubt unless you offer
something better than a bare assertion that he was mistaken or lying.

It doesn't matter whether you doubt it. What matters is whether the
judge doubts it. The judge will give the officer credence because it
is the officer's job to determine whether or not somebody is speeding.
Unrefuted, that will be enough to convict.

--
Chris Green

a écrit :
> Mine is an imported car - a relatively new (2003) Honda Accord. Do
> you mean that the speedometer's reading on my car is higher than
> the actual speed?
>

I'm fairly sure of it. Typically you will have an error from as low as
about 1/10 mph or sometimes as high as 10, I'd estimate yours to be on
the lower side, but typically all auto speedos (exc. calibrated) read high.

As well, as the tires wear, they become smaller and thus the speedo
reads higher... it's impossible to have a perfect speed reading.

--
----------------------
http://www.saab-900.tk
The Saab Tech Resource
----------------------