This is just lovely...

[ChrisV]

http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/95410314.html

Ohio's highest court has ruled that a person may be convicted of speeding purely if it looked to a police officer that the motorist was going too fast. I realize that this used to be the "old way" of doing it before radar, but the whole reason for radar and the like was to get rid of the old school way of making it a judgement call from the officer, whom being only human could make mistakes (or just decide that he didn't like you).

[Laconian]

http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/95410314.html

Ohio's highest court has ruled that a person may be convicted of speeding purely if it looked to a police officer that the motorist was going too fast. I realize that this used to be the "old way" of doing it before radar, but the whole reason for radar and the like was to get rid of the old school way of making it a judgement call from the officer, whom being only human could make mistakes (or just decide that he didn't like you).

I'm willing to bet that municipal budget deficits in Ohio will have a tendency to make cars appear faster.

[ChrisV]

Ya think? Even for a trained officer that can estimate speeds to within a few mph, they can be influenced by sound, shape, and color. A red Porsche with louder exhaust WILL look faster at 60 than a quiet, beige Camry. ALWAYS. And if the speed limit is 60, and you're doing 60, do you really want them to have legal precedent to simply say, "he looks like he's going 67 mph" and pull you over? And have it stick because some do-gooder decided that an officer, by virtue of their position, IS more credible than you are? I don't.

Estimating speeds is pretty easy at lower speeds, and considerably more difficult the faster it gets, especially narrowing it down to within a ticketable limit. Even an untrained officer could tell that a person was doing 35 in a 20 mph zone within a couple mph variance. But at 60, it'll be a lot harder. Distance from the object in question also plays a part. 35 mph seems a lot faster when you're 5 feet from the car going by than it does a mile away. And I'd like to ask trained officers who think they are good at this sort of thing to estimate the speed of a 737 going overhead to within 10 mph...

Seems fitting that this legal precedent is trying to be set in the state that gave us New Rome...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Rome,_Ohio

http://www.newromesucks.com/main.html

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

This has been on the news here all day. People are in a uproar.    I'm really speechless........

[the Teuton]

...and I'm not planning on going back home anytime soon now.

[Eye of the Tiger]

This would be great it if would be used instead of radar, and just to catch purely reckless drivers. Instead, I fear it will be used to hand out $300 speeding tickets like candy to little girls dressed as fair princesses on Halloween.

Like I've said before, the most just and fair thing to do would be to reduce speeding to a secondary offense, and only let cops pull you over if you are obvioiu8sly doing something reckless and dangerous in conjunction with a supposed excess of speed.

[2o6]

This is not going to be good.

[dazzleman]

Teuton, what are you worried about?  PlastiCar always appears to be going 25 mph anyway.  You have nothing to worry about.

Whatever the ruling, I bet this type of speeding enforcement will remain rare and easily challengeable in court.

[the Teuton]

Teuton, what are you worried about?  PlastiCar always appears to be going 25 mph anyway.  You have nothing to worry about.

Whatever the ruling, I bet this type of speeding enforcement will remain rare and easily challengeable in court.

My car is loud. They'll stop me for "speeding" the speed limit, then ticket me for a BS noise violation, even though my car is still relatively "quiet."

I see no good coming from this.

[Eye of the Tiger]

My car is loud. They'll stop me for "speeding" the speed limit, then ticket me for a BS noise violation, even though my car is still relatively "quiet."

I see no good coming from this.

You need to put your fart can on to complete the package.

[the Teuton]

You need to put your fart can on to complete the package.

It'll happen. It's either going to be a Rage Speedmaster or nothing at all.

[Eye of the Tiger]

It'll happen. It's either going to be a Rage Speedmaster or nothing at all.

If you ever put that thing on, I will follow suit buy putting a motorcycle can on the Swift. 

[Laconian]

Teuton, what are you worried about?  PlastiCar always appears to be going 25 mph anyway.  You have nothing to worry about.

Whatever the ruling, I bet this type of speeding enforcement will remain rare and easily challengeable in court.

He'll lose the cops in the smoke screen.

[the Teuton]

He'll lose the cops in the smoke screen.

Oh, fuck off...

If you ever put that thing on, I will follow suit buy putting a motorcycle can on the Swift. 

Is that a motorcycle can?

[Eye of the Tiger]

Oh, fuck off...

Is that a motorcycle can?

Naw, you got a fart can there.

See, I want to get something like this, and for no reason other than being ridiculous, put it on the Swift:

[dazzleman]

He'll lose the cops in the smoke screen.

Believe me, you're right.  I can still smell the smoke from Teuton starting up PlastiCar in my driveway.

[the Teuton]

Believe me, you're right.  I can still smell the smoke from Teuton starting up PlastiCar in my driveway.

I just put some oil in it not too long ago. I was thinking that I'd capture some carbon residue in a bottle and mail it out to you just in case that smell ever wears off.

[dazzleman]

I just put some oil in it not too long ago. I was thinking that I'd capture some carbon residue in a bottle and mail it out to you just in case that smell ever wears off.

Don't worry.  It won't.  The pollution is permanent. 

[the Teuton]

Don't worry.  It won't.  The pollution is permanent. 

I won't be happy unless you have a big carbon spot on your driveway.

[dazzleman]

I won't be happy unless you have a big carbon spot on your driveway.

I have one, right on the spot where PlastiCar was parked.

[the Teuton]

I have one, right on the spot where PlastiCar was parked.

Then my work is done.

[SVT_Power]

This has to be a joke. If a ticket issued this way stands up in court, that's just BS.

[Byteme]

http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/95410314.html

Ohio's highest court has ruled that a person may be convicted of speeding purely if it looked to a police officer that the motorist was going too fast. I realize that this used to be the "old way" of doing it before radar, but the whole reason for radar and the like was to get rid of the old school way of making it a judgement call from the officer, whom being only human could make mistakes (or just decide that he didn't like you).

Yet another reason to avoid Ohio.  I'm glad I've already seen the only thing worth seeing in the state; the Air Force Museum.

[GoCougs]

Subjective law is the tool of the immoral state.

[bing_oh]

http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/95410314.html

Ohio's highest court has ruled that a person may be convicted of speeding purely if it looked to a police officer that the motorist was going too fast. I realize that this used to be the "old way" of doing it before radar, but the whole reason for radar and the like was to get rid of the old school way of making it a judgement call from the officer, whom being only human could make mistakes (or just decide that he didn't like you).

No, this wasn't the "old way" of doing it before radar. Before radar, LEO's generally used VASCAR, where an officer used a stopwatch to time a vehicle travelling a set distance to determine speed.

In reality, legal radar usage already requires that the officer visually estimate speed before activating the radar and the radar must correspond with the visual estimation. It's a required part of radar training and officers much show a consistant ability to estimate vehicle speeds in various conditions within a few mph. The courts are simply acknowledging an established and trained ability for the vast majority of LEO's.

I also find it interesting that people here think that such a legal precident would somehow encourage corruption and false citations. If I, as a LEO, am willing to faslify a citation with a visually estimated speed, then why wouldn't I falsify a citation with a radar or laser speed? Those speed measurement devices don't keep a log of every speed recorded and I'm not required by law to show you your speed when I pull you over. Likewise, such devices all have know errors that have to be recognized by a trained operator. Mistakes can be made with both radar and laser that would create a false speed. The likelihood of errors and the margin or error for a trained LEO doing visual speed estimation as opposed to radar or laser is negligable.

[bing_oh]

Subjective law is the tool of the immoral state.

All law is subjective by its very nature as a thing made by man. If it wasn't, we wouldn't need the judicial branch of the government.

[SVT_Power]

All law is subjective by its very nature as a thing made by man. If it wasn't, we wouldn't need the judicial branch of the government.

"You were doing exactly XX mph according to this machine. So you will be given a ticket for going yy mph over the limit"

Doesn't seem that subjective to me

[rohan]

It's completely subjective- the officers has the absolute right to write it for any speed over the limit up to what he clocked you at not to mention it's completely and absolutely up to him if he even pulls you over or writes the ticket.  We've had this law for probably 50 years in Michigan- Violation of Basic Speed Law and on the ticket we just write  "VBSL"  nothing else in the violation section.

[Raza]

It's completely subjective- the officers has the absolute right to write it for any speed over the limit up to what he clocked you at not to mention it's completely and absolutely up to him if he even pulls you over or writes the ticket.  We've had this law for probably 50 years in Michigan- Violation of Basic Speed Law and on the ticket we just write  "VBSL"  nothing else in the violation section.

And yet, you wonder why people are upset about unjust speed enforcement, without even touching upon the morality of speed limits in the first place.

[ChrisV]

No, this wasn't the "old way" of doing it before radar. Before radar, LEO's generally used VASCAR, where an officer used a stopwatch to time a vehicle travelling a set distance to determine speed.

For decades, they didn't use VASCAR, they simply sat behind billboards and if you looked/sounded fast, you were pulled over. Maybe your "old days" only go back to about 1970 or so...

In reality, legal radar usage already requires that the officer visually estimate speed before activating the radar and the radar must correspond with the visual estimation. It's a required part of radar training and officers much show a consistant ability to estimate vehicle speeds in various conditions within a few mph. The courts are simply acknowledging an established and trained ability for the vast majority of LEO's.

And I gave some examples I'd like to see demonstrated. Different locations, different distances, different looking and sounding cars. It's plainly obvious a jet flying overhead doesn't LOOK like it's doing 375-500 mph, but it is. If we didn't already KNOW it, from general knowledge, how close do YOU think YOU could estimate it's speed by looking at it? And a red 911 with a louder exhaust will seem faster if it goes by you fairly close, than a gold Camry would going a little faster further away. No matter how well you're trained, you KNOW that 's going to be the case. And I can also guarantee that if you took 10 officers and had them visually estimate the speed of the same car in the same spot, you'd get 10 different answers and few of them would match the radar gun. Change the kind of car and the distance/angle to it, and that disparity will change, as well. That's the reason for multiple measurements, both visual and mechanical... to reduce error, and reduce the risk of it being a simple judgement call.

I also find it interesting that people here think that such a legal precident would somehow encourage corruption and false citations.

You mean in places like New Rome? Or the deep south? I realize that you have to have a very high regard for your fellow officers, and I have high regard for a lot of officers, including most on this board, but sorry, police abuse of power is a long standing "tradition" and reality in MANY jurisdictions. In most places, there is recourse after the fact, but it would be nice to reduce the opportunity to NEED after-the-fact recompense for mistakes. We have the ability to reduce subjectivity, this is in effect going backwards. And for what reason, really? Why would officers want to open themselves up to looking even more like bad guys in the eyes of the general citizenry?

I think history has made it blatantly clear that giving people (including police) power without some type of check system will result in said power being abused. That is fact.

If I, as a LEO, am willing to faslify a citation with a visually estimated speed, then why wouldn't I falsify a citation with a radar or laser speed? Those speed measurement devices don't keep a log of every speed recorded and I'm not required by law to show you your speed when I pull you over. Likewise, such devices all have know errors that have to be recognized by a trained operator. Mistakes can be made with both radar and laser that would create a false speed. The likelihood of errors and the margin or error for a trained LEO doing visual speed estimation as opposed to radar or laser is negligable.

In most, if not all cases of mechanical verification of speed, the accused has recourse to question the veracity of the claims. And yes, falsification has happened, in both claims of using it (no, your honor, it did not pick up the much larger truck behind the defendant) and in calibration (yes, your honor the device was calibrated before each stop in accordance with policy and the operating manual). But you do have a way of questioning it.

This ruling is in effect stating "the officer's word is final law and he doesn't have to actually KNOW you were going fast, only that he FELT you were going fast. And you can't question that."

"A rational trier of fact could find testimony by a police officer who
is trained, certified by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy (?OPOTA?) or a
similar organization, and experienced in visually estimating vehicle speed, that he
estimated a vehicle?s speed to be in excess of the posted limit sufficient evidence
to establish a violation of R.C. 4511.21(D) beyond a reasonable doubt. "

Sorry, but we're tuning everyday citizens into criminal suspects whose word is worth less than an officer's. And all in the name of filling the coffers easier. You clock me over for 70 in a 55 zone, you got me. But if you pull me over for 70 in a 65 zone when I was DOING 65, just because my modded car LOOKS/SOUNDS fast to you, I better be able to ask you to prove it other than "well, I'm trained to estimate speed." My problem with estimate speed type tickets are that you have no logical legal way to fight them. To fight them is to call the ticketing officer a liar in court, vs merely mistaken, and how the heck do you convince a judge (that knows the cop) of that?

And let's not get into the whole "kill 'em all and let God sort it out" mentality of let them write as many tickets as they want and if you're in the right you can simply fight it and win. I shouldn't have to be inconvenienced by HAVING to try to fight it in the first place, just because some officer decided that they didn't like what I was driving that day, even if I was doing nothing wrong. I've already had to fight officers making mistakes like that, and see no good in canonizing that behavior.