...regarding speeding tickets. Heck, there's heat in Canada over that case. I read the article, and there is insufficient data in there about how the officer estimated the speed of the driver in question.
Many moons ago, I was a cop (briefly) and trained in visual speed estimation for working traffic. Radars were new, and very expensive back then (not to mention dangerous to the user, though we didn't know that yet), so "visual speed estimation" was the norm, something that has been lost to the public as we're so used to radars.
Back then, I had to have two markers of a known distance apart and a stopwatch. I had to have a diagram of the speed trap, showing all the relationships. I had a table of time-to-speed conversions for the known distance. And I had a log. Clock the car, if it's below the threshold, reset the stopwatch, wait for the next vehicle. Repeat. If you forget to reset the stopwatch - that's in the driver's favor. He'll have to be going damn fast to get caught then... as in fast enough to turn back time.
I don't know what the standard is for "trained to visually estimate speed" is in Ohio, but I know the method I described is still in use.
That's what those white marks in the middle of the lane on highways are for - known distance markers for an aircraft overhead, using a stopwatch and then calling down to a patrol vehicle to pull over a speeder. Though for the costs of aircraft use, I doubt those are being used much for that anymore. I don't think I've seen an aerial speed trap for well over a decade. But then, I might just have missed the aircraft, too.
If the court is just supporting a cop in a car going, "Hey, looks fast to me." then there's some justification to the heat. But I'm guessing there's a methodology in use that is similar to what I described, and that's pretty basic applied physics.
Bottom line - if you don't like the call (or can't afford the consequences of a bad call) then fight it.
If you were speeding - pay the ticket and pay attention next time you're driving.
Many moons ago, I was a cop (briefly) and trained in visual speed estimation for working traffic. Radars were new, and very expensive back then (not to mention dangerous to the user, though we didn't know that yet), so "visual speed estimation" was the norm, something that has been lost to the public as we're so used to radars.
Back then, I had to have two markers of a known distance apart and a stopwatch. I had to have a diagram of the speed trap, showing all the relationships. I had a table of time-to-speed conversions for the known distance. And I had a log. Clock the car, if it's below the threshold, reset the stopwatch, wait for the next vehicle. Repeat. If you forget to reset the stopwatch - that's in the driver's favor. He'll have to be going damn fast to get caught then... as in fast enough to turn back time.
I don't know what the standard is for "trained to visually estimate speed" is in Ohio, but I know the method I described is still in use.
That's what those white marks in the middle of the lane on highways are for - known distance markers for an aircraft overhead, using a stopwatch and then calling down to a patrol vehicle to pull over a speeder. Though for the costs of aircraft use, I doubt those are being used much for that anymore. I don't think I've seen an aerial speed trap for well over a decade. But then, I might just have missed the aircraft, too.
If the court is just supporting a cop in a car going, "Hey, looks fast to me." then there's some justification to the heat. But I'm guessing there's a methodology in use that is similar to what I described, and that's pretty basic applied physics.
Bottom line - if you don't like the call (or can't afford the consequences of a bad call) then fight it.
If you were speeding - pay the ticket and pay attention next time you're driving.
In NJ we don't have police that say they think you were speeding. The conversation always starts off with "do you know how fast you were going?" Everyone says No...so the cop picks a number. Since the cost of fighting it was more then the fine, you just paid. Everyone knows the police raises are covered by tickets, so the beginning and end of each month to cover quotas is the prime time to be careful.
And...Yes...there is quotas. Don't let anyone tell you different. A cop that doesn't cover his allotment can get in trouble with his fellow cops.
Speeding tickets are like tolls. Every once in a while you have to pay a toll. You just have to make sure it doesn't effect your insurance.
"But what about tickets for following too closely, those are determined by the officer's estimate as well?" I never said that was a good idea either. But until we have a technological solution (as we have with mechanical means of determining speed), we're forced to take the officer's word on it. Bad solution, but it's an imperfect world. My question is, why don't Ohio cops have radar guns (or similar devices)?
My solution? (other than just driving the speed limit, of course) Just make sure you're driving with the flow of traffic so they don't have a good way of judging your speed compared to everyone else around you.
There's no "physical proof" generated by a radar, either. And while radar reduces the potential uncertainty (assuming all the little techno requirements have been met) we're still relying on an acceptance of the basic underlying physics.
Yes, in the case of the stopwatch, we are relying on the officer to be both reasonably accurate as well as honest in when he starts and stops the watch. But we're relying on that basic honesty in all our interactions with cops.
Caveating that we don't know the details of the case that started the discussion, this is one of those things where there's a lot of emotion involved in the assessment of what's appropriate or not.
The cultural discussion, vice the physical, is more intriguing.
as they go past, you listened to the "whoosh". the lower the frequency, the slower they were going compared to your speed. higher freqency, they were travelling faster than you. we trained on it on the "back 40" using the cruise controls on the vehicles and it definitely works. it was a small base though, so we didn't get to use it much.
My thought is that if the officer in this case had <em>any</em> of the items you named, the case would never have reached the higher court in the first place. It sure sounds like pure estimation, not based on observation or calculation at all.
Handing the traffic police a blank cheque on speeding issues, so to speak. I think this is a bad idea all around, but I once had a speeding ticket so I'm clearly biased.
Oh, and I've had six tickets, lifetime. No professional courtesy extended...
In a related story I was once arrested for legally purchasing a legal vehicle. I bought a used car from my father-in-law and was drving it to get inspected. I was pulled over and the officer told me the tags were expired and I said "Oh, I just bought it an hour ago from my wife's dad," to which he replied "That's too bad, if it were still your father-in-laws car I wouldn't have to arrest you, I could just give you a ticket for the expired tags." He took me to the police station and I had to pay $200 to bail out on a charge of borrowed or stolen licence tags. I didn't even think of taking my in-law's tags off. The judge lowered the charge to driving with expired tags and I had to pay $55.
I think of it as a good investment, I've told that story dozens of times - sometimes in front of the officer, who is now a detective and a nice enough guy when he's not patrolling - which he doesn't do anymore since his promotion.
He said they'd been overwhelmed with complaints, a lot from LEO's and former LEO's.
Remember the "VASCAR ENFORCED" signs on Kaserns in Germany?
I got stopped for speeding (once) and got into a discussion about radar with the ossifer.
Half-hour later, I departed with a warning and he left with enough information about X-Band and K-Band to out-bluff a lawyer if he were ever questioned on it.
Just one more reason to wear a flight suit when you drive...