[s-cars] Tagged

[LL - NY]

The problem is that your configuration (correct as it may be) is still your
word vs. his.

Perchance, did he specifically state (as on the ticket) that he tracked you
by LIDAR, or was there a statement of "visual assessment" (which is sort of
an automatic testimony, at least in NYS, as in "I visually determined that
the vehicle was traveling at approximately XX velocity, then
*verified*using the XS Revenuer T1000 Walletectomy device...")? At
least in NY, a
visual assesment, such as he determined that you were traveling at the same
velocity as the Subdivision would still be considered admissable in traffic
court. You'd have to be able to show that there wouldn't have been enough
time for him to visually track the Subdivision's speed and your speed
simultaneously by visual reference (which in this case, in NY, could be the
Subdivision, *especially* if the Subdivision doesn't contest the ticket.

LL - NY

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Lee Levitt <lee at wheelman.com> wrote:

>
> Paul,
>
> Thanks.
>
> He didn't ask.
>
> My case hinges on the fact that he was standing in the road with a
> handheld laser, taking readings on two vehicles coming at him. He
> was either on the shoulder or in the slow lane, and we were in the
> fast lane.
>
> I was about 8 carlengths behind the car in front of me, which was
> a big GM SUV (Suburban or Tahoe).  From the cop's vantage point at
> 1000 feet, my car must have been almost completely shaded by the
> SUV.
>
> I spent some time thinking about the geometry of this, then looked
> at two cars on the road in a similar configuration. A picture will
> be worth a thousand words. I'm going to stage the configuration
> and then take some pictures. I'll bet I won't be able to see
> anything of my car at all, except perhaps my right hand mirror.
> Not much of a target for laser, especially since the pattern at
> 1000 feet is a 3" diameter circle, and that assumes that he was
> able to hold the laser steady.
>
> Evidently there's a "measurezone" that suggests that if other
> objects are in this zone, readings are questionable.
>
>
> http://www.radardetector.net/forums/how-beat-your-ticket/25163-slip-sweep-effect-laser-lidar-speed-traps-lti20-20-a.html
>
> This is 2x the diameter or 6 feet. That's half a lane and would
> certainly cover both the SUV and the right side of my car.
>
> Lee
>
> On Mon Mar 30 09:22:18 CDT 2009, pkrasusky at ups.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Mike asked:
> >
> > <<<Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:17:24 -0700
> > From: "Mike Sylvester" <mike at urq20v.com>
> > Subject: Re: [s-cars] Tagged
> >
> > The bigger question is, what did he say to the cop?
> >
> > Did the cop ask you "Do you know how fast you were going?"
> > If he did your answer is very crucial.
> >
> > The only good answer to that question is "Yes".
> >
> > Mike>>>
> >
> >
> >
> > Lee-
> >
> > Mike's spot-on with this one.  I got bag'd in MA in Dec. coming
> > back from Mikee Platt's bonfire in the 930 w/ Rossato.  76 in 55,
> > which was kinda laughable as we'd done nearly door to door to
> > door @ 120+++.  I plead NG as the court was all of 18mi north of
> > my office here, and better yet - it bought me like 3+ months more
> > time of MY MONEY.
> >
> > The process went exactly as Mike's previous email to this one
> > went.  They only need to prove a "preponderance of evidence", and
> > a Trooper is present to discuss the facts with the Magistrate and
> > you.  This is tough to beat.
> >
> > I plead my case, which I thought was a good one.  But then, the
> > inevitable:
> >
> > "The Trooper's notes say he asked if you knew how fast you were
> > going, and you replied NO".  End of story, I was SOL there
> > forward.  They then asked me that Q again, to which I could only
> > reply that I was NOT going either 55, nor 76 - both of which were
> > true 8-).
> >
> > Long story short tho - in MA it was a whopping $100, where in CT
> > that'd been $289 or so.  I happily paid (which you have another
> > like 21 days, AND you can pay online AND can use credit card),
> > and went 120+++ (+++++++) on my merry way.
> >
> > Sorry I can't help you more, other than to suggest YES go fight
> > it, if only to negate the $$$ level and the specific infraction.
> > In CT if you know your statutes, you can ask for something less
> > than "speeding", like "unreasonable speed".
> >
> > HTH, good luck.  Don't let The Man keep you DOWN - FIGHT DA
> > POWAH!!! 8-)
> >
> > -Paul not particularly right K.
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> S-CAR-List mailing list
> S-CAR-List at audifans.com
> http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/s-car-list
>
>