This is just lovely...

[MX793]

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.

I'm pretty sure you can be issued a speeding ticket for an unspecified amount over the limit here in NY too.  IIRC, it carries fewer points than all other speeding tickets except for <10 over (I think they carry the same point penalty).

[GoCougs]

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.

Actually, law as it is codified, not how it came about.

The evil of subjective law is that it is a moving target from the POV of the accused.

[dazzleman]

I'm pretty sure you can be issued a speeding ticket for an unspecified amount over the limit here in NY too.  IIRC, it carries fewer points than all other speeding tickets except for <10 over (I think they carry the same point penalty).

In Connecticut, you can get a ticket for 'traveling unreasonably fast.'  As a technical point, 'speeding' only applies to speeds over 55 mph in this state; any illegal or unsafe speed under that is 'traveling unreasonably fast.'

If it is snowing out, for example, you can be ticketed for that even if you're going at or below the speed limit.  It can be a subjective measure.  In some states, motorists were able to argue that they could safely exceed the speed limit if the law was safety-based rather than numerically based.

[the Teuton]

Crosswire, the mutual friend of both me and MrH (went to HS with me and UD with him) was pulled over in Dayton a while back because his car "sounded fast." That sort of thing happens when you're doing 30 mph in second gear with a lightly modified M3.

And it was BS. He didn't get a ticket, though.

[dazzleman]

Crosswire, the mutual friend of both me and MrH (went to HS with me and UD with him) was pulled over in Dayton a while back because his car "sounded fast." That sort of thing happens when you're doing 30 mph in second gear with a lightly modified M3.

And it was BS. He didn't get a ticket, though.

Administration of the law will never be perfect.  It is interesting how the sound of a car affects the perception of speed, even inside the car.  One reason luxury cars don't feel as fast as cheaper cars when you're driving them on the highway is that they're a lot quieter.

[SVT_Power]

Administration of the law will never be perfect.  It is interesting how the sound of a car affects the perception of speed, even inside the car.  One reason luxury cars don't feel as fast as cheaper cars when you're driving them on the highway is that they're a lot quieter.

until you start going so fast that your brain is too busy trying to see if something's gonna kill you instead of listening...

[bing_oh]

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...

What can I say...I wasn't even born in 1967 when VASCAR was invented. So, yea, 1970 is really the "old days" for me!

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.

During my radar instruction and certification, I was required to visually estimate a minimum number of cars (not airplanes...I don't write many 767's speeding tickets cuz they're a bitch to pull over) at various speeds, distances, anglest, etc within a 3 mph margin of error for my instructor. I'm confident in my ability to accurately estimate speed visually...from the loud 911 to the beater Camry. If I'm not confident in my speed estimation, I wouldn't pull a vehicle over, let alone write a citation. Would 10 officers give you 10 different speed estimations on the same vehicle? Maybe...but I'm betting that, if they're properly trained and experienced, they'd all be within a 3-5 mph margin of error.

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.

Have you ever noticed how big a news story it is when a police officer or, even worse, a whole department is pegged as being "corrupt" is in this country? Did you ever wonder why it's big news? Let me give you a hint...it has something to do with how widespread "corruption" is within LE anymore. If LEO's were so corrupt, then it wouldn't be news because it would be accepted and commonplace. Once upon a time, it was so in this country. In reality, corruption is becoming increasingly rare in the US in law enforcement. I'm not gonna say it doesn't happen...LEO's are people and even the best hiring practices, training, oversight, and standards can't keep out every bad apple...but it isn't common by any stretch of the imagination.

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.

The same recourse...that being the judicial system...is still in place for visually-estimated speed citations. Who says you can't question an officer's training, experience, and judgement on the stand for such a citation? And, just because a radar or laser unit is used to judge speed doesn't prevent an unscrupulous officer from lying about the speed readings...as I said, there's no log of the readings taken by such devices, just the officer's word.

In the end, that's what it comes down to...the officer's word and trust in the fact that he or she is acting in good faith. The vast majority of officers are like me and wouldn't stop or cite unless he or she was absolutely sure in the visual speed estimation. If you don't trust the officer's word, then no mechanical or electronic speed measurement device is going to change that...nor will such a device make an unscruplous officer any more honest.

[dazzleman]

bing_oh, if you pulled me over for speeding and I told you who I was, would you give me a ticket or let me off with a warning? 

[dazzleman]

until you start going so fast that your brain is too busy trying to see if something's gonna kill you instead of listening...

You ought to know that feeling....

Just be careful out there, man.  Any number of tickets is fine, but no accidents.

[bing_oh]

Actually, law as it is codified, not how it came about.

The evil of subjective law is that it is a moving target from the POV of the accused.

Even law as it is codified is subjective because of the unpredictable nature of man and the countless different scenarios to which a law must be applied. To even try to make a law all-encompassing and apply directly to every possible situation would make our code of laws a confusing, convoluted, monster (even more than it already is). That's why we specifically have the judicial branch...to interpet the law as it applies to situations in the real world.

[bing_oh]

bing_oh, if you pulled me over for speeding and I told you who I was, would you give me a ticket or let me off with a warning? 

Naturally, I'd give ya a warning Daz...after pulling you out of the car, beating you like a red-headed stepchild, and leaving you for dead in the ditch, of course! Ya gotta let me have a little fun, damnit!

[dazzleman]

Naturally, I'd give ya a warning Daz...after pulling you out of the car, beating you like a red-headed stepchild, and leaving you for dead in the ditch, of course! Ya gotta let me have a little fun, damnit!

Thanks, man.  Glad to know I could count on a little special treatment....

[bing_oh]

Thanks, man.  Glad to know I could count on a little special treatment....

Hey, anything for a friend, man! And, quite frankly, I'd be a little disappointed if you didn't at least give me a little chase or something.

[dazzleman]

Hey, anything for a friend, man! And, quite frankly, I'd be a little disappointed if you didn't at least give me a little chase or something.

Hah, I don't know if I'd have the balls for that at my age.  I did evade a cop who wanted to pull me over for speeding once, but it was more subtle.  I was doing about 55 or so in a 40 mph zone on a 'parkway' (halfway between a road and a highway), and suddenly I saw a cop on the service road at the side.  After I passed, he quickly started to pull out and was gaining on me.  I went around a curve and suddenly there was a traffic light.  I made a quick decision to make a left at the light, got off, and lost myself in the residential streets around the area.  I got back on the parkway further up and didn't encounter that cop again.

Other than that, I've never tried to evade a cop, but you're making me think I should....   I've always been more of a 'man up and take my punishment' kind of guy than an evader.  My MO is to make the whole thing a big joke, rather than risk bigger trouble through evasion.

[bing_oh]

Hah, I don't know if I'd have the balls for that at my age.  I did evade a cop who wanted to pull me over for speeding once, but it was more subtle.  I was doing about 55 or so in a 40 mph zone on a 'parkway' (halfway between a road and a highway), and suddenly I saw a cop on the service road at the side.  After I passed, he quickly started to pull out and was gaining on me.  I went around a curve and suddenly there was a traffic light.  I made a quick decision to make a left at the light, got off, and lost myself in the residential streets around the area.  I got back on the parkway further up and didn't encounter that cop again.

Other than that, I've never tried to evade a cop, but you're making me think I should....   I've always been more of a 'man up and take my punishment' kind of guy than an evader.  My MO is to make the whole thing a big joke, rather than risk bigger trouble through evasion.

Who said anything about "evasion?" I just want an excuse to drive fast, damnit!

[dazzleman]

Who said anything about "evasion?" I just want an excuse to drive fast, damnit!

You're really tempting me to come out to Ohio, man.....

[bing_oh]

You're really tempting me to come out to Ohio, man.....

Hell, I'll even visually-estimate your speed for ya before pulling you over!

One word of advice, Dave...when you run, don't go west! Those boys in Indiana have zero sense of humor when it comes to pursuits. They're still of the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality over there...

[dazzleman]

Hell, I'll even visually-estimate your speed for ya before pulling you over!

My car's quiet, so you'll probably think I'm doing 60 when I'm doing 85.  Not too worried about that...

You really are tempting me, man.  I'd love a nice super-fast drive on a relatively open road.  I get that so seldom around here.  There's so much traffic, and my driving distances are pretty short.

The best drive I think I ever had was in 1999 when I was coming back from Myrtle Beach, SC.  I stopped overnight in Maryland just north of Washington, and had to leave really early on a Sunday morning to head home.  There was nobody on the roads, so I just dropped the hammer.  Man, it was great....   I even saw a few cops, but they were always on the other side of the road, or already busy with another 'customer,' so I slipped right through.  That was even better -- to blow by those cops and still not get busted.  At one point, there was a major speed detail -- on the other side of the road.  The staties had a whole bunch of cars lined up for tickets.  I blew right by it...   Honestly, even if I'd known I was guaranteed a major ticket for that speeding, I'd still have done it.  It was so much fun.

[Rupert]

bing_oh, if you pulled me over for speeding and I told you who I was, would you give me a ticket or let me off with a warning? 

My guess is that, really, he'd give you a ticket, but me a warning.

[GoCougs]

Even law as it is codified is subjective because of the unpredictable nature of man and the countless different scenarios to which a law must be applied. To even try to make a law all-encompassing and apply directly to every possible situation would make our code of laws a confusing, convoluted, monster (even more than it already is). That's why we specifically have the judicial branch...to interpet the law as it applies to situations in the real world.

Implementation can be subjective, sure, but that's not the problem. Subjective law is by its definition unchallengeable, like this law.

[dazzleman]

My guess is that, really, he'd give you a ticket, but me a warning.

I think you're right....   You seem to be good at getting away with stuff.  I've gotten better at it, but I still don't seem to have the knack.  The problem, such as it was, has most solved itself since my advanced age doesn't permit me to do much wrong anymore....

[cawimmer430]

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 can see the officer excuses already...

"Your honor, the man was driving a Porsche/BMW/Ferrari..., he was clearly going fast!"

"It says V12 Biturbo on the sides of this big Mercedes sedan!"


Second hand sales of riced-out Honda Civic DX's are going to soar because of this! 

Who's willing to emigrate to Germany? 

[Rupert]

Without junkyards? I don't think so.

[cawimmer430]

Without junkyards? I don't think so.

Tell me about it. 

[ChrisV]

What can I say...I wasn't even born in 1967 when VASCAR was invented. So, yea, 1970 is really the "old days" for me!

Lol! Yeah, I imagine it is. And even after VASCAR was invented, it didn't go into widespread use for years.

During my radar instruction and certification, I was required to visually estimate a minimum number of cars (not airplanes...I don't write many 767's speeding tickets cuz they're a bitch to pull over) at various speeds, distances, anglest, etc within a 3 mph margin of error for my instructor. I'm confident in my ability to accurately estimate speed visually...from the loud 911 to the beater Camry. If I'm not confident in my speed estimation, I wouldn't pull a vehicle over, let alone write a citation. Would 10 officers give you 10 different speed estimations on the same vehicle? Maybe...but I'm betting that, if they're properly trained and experienced, they'd all be within a 3-5 mph margin of error.

The reason I brought the jetliner example into it is not that you can' tpull them over (ha ha) but that it's an example of seing something move slowly in front of you even though it's going very, very fast. Due to it's distance and size, it will cross a smaller arc of your vision in the same amount of time as something moving VASTLY slower, but closer. Judging it's speed, then, accurately is hard, even for you. The example works, as everyone has experienced seeing one go overhead and everyone ALSO knows that it's going pretty damn fast, though it looks slow. And yes, with budgets ebing what they are these days, i do NOT expect enough officers to be trained properly AND properly expereinced in speed estimation to simply makle a blanket law that says "the officer is accurate enough to be infallable" which is the gist of this ruling.

Have you ever noticed how big a news story it is when a police officer or, even worse, a whole department is pegged as being "corrupt" is in this country? Did you ever wonder why it's big news? Let me give you a hint...it has something to do with how widespread "corruption" is within LE anymore. If LEO's were so corrupt, then it wouldn't be news because it would be accepted and commonplace. Once upon a time, it was so in this country. In reality, corruption is becoming increasingly rare in the US in law enforcement. I'm not gonna say it doesn't happen...LEO's are people and even the best hiring practices, training, oversight, and standards can't keep out every bad apple...but it isn't common by any stretch of the imagination.

It's not about corruption (well, New Rome was) it's about a certain feeling, and you express it as does Rohan, of the "superiority" complex of officers that even if they make mistakes, the law is on their side enough to make them a tad overconfident in their position. And they do have a bit of a "kill 'em all and let God sort it out" mentality, even if it increases their paperwork.

The same recourse...that being the judicial system...is still in place for visually-estimated speed citations. Who says you can't question an officer's training, experience, and judgement on the stand for such a citation?

This kind of ignored my entire last paragraph: why should I, doing nothing wrong, be inconvenienced and HAVE to fight something like this? It's exactly the mentality I previously talked about. You feel it shouldn't matter if the officer is wrong, because you can still take them to court and try to prove your case. I feel it should be MUCH more on the state to ensure that there is less chance of an officer dragging a taxpaying, law abiding, voting citizen into court to try and prove that they aren't a criminal.

As was pointed out elswhere, making the law subjective on purpose makes OBEYING it a moving target, as even if you ARE being legal, you can still get treated liek a criminal and run afoul of the subjectivity. Why would an officer like yourself WANT that sort of scrutiny? I woudl think you would want the ability to be vastly LESS subjective: here's what you did. Here's the proof. Have a nice day." People will still fight it, but the chances of being wrong is greatly reduced, and a lot less people woudl fight it.

In the end, that's what it comes down to...the officer's word and trust in the fact that he or she is acting in good faith. The vast majority of officers are like me and wouldn't stop or cite unless he or she was absolutely sure in the visual speed estimation. If you don't trust the officer's word, then no mechanical or electronic speed measurement device is going to change that...nor will such a device make an unscruplous officer any more honest.

Truthfully, I think most officers are on the up and up. They work long hours, do a thankless job, and are simply honest people. But there have been enough issues nationwide that a citizen feels lke they are simply ATMs for politicians due to laws like this, subjective enforcemetn makes people feel victimized, and when the citizens are angry with the way theri politicians and LEOs are treating them, then the relationship between LEOS and the public is adversarial, which leads more LEOs to not be corrupt, but simply not be as careful or caring about the citizenry they are supposed to be protecting. I mean, look at the officers that are supposed to be responding to crimes like burglaries and the like. Always a cry from management and cities that they can't put enough officers on those details or respond fast enough due to budget cuts. But they can ALWAYS put massive numbers of officers out on traffic watch generating the revenue.

[bing_oh]

The reason I brought the jetliner example into it is not that you can' tpull them over (ha ha) but that it's an example of seing something move slowly in front of you even though it's going very, very fast. Due to it's distance and size, it will cross a smaller arc of your vision in the same amount of time as something moving VASTLY slower, but closer. Judging it's speed, then, accurately is hard, even for you. The example works, as everyone has experienced seeing one go overhead and everyone ALSO knows that it's going pretty damn fast, though it looks slow. And yes, with budgets ebing what they are these days, i do NOT expect enough officers to be trained properly AND properly expereinced in speed estimation to simply makle a blanket law that says "the officer is accurate enough to be infallable" which is the gist of this ruling.

But your jetliner example is wrong. I'm betting that, with time, training, and speed measurement equipment to compair results to, I could probably learn to estimate aircraft speeds visually. I can do it with semis, even though they're bigger than cars and untrained people tend to think they're going faster than they really are.

It's not about corruption (well, New Rome was) it's about a certain feeling, and you express it as does Rohan, of the "superiority" complex of officers that even if they make mistakes, the law is on their side enough to make them a tad overconfident in their position. And they do have a bit of a "kill 'em all and let God sort it out" mentality, even if it increases their paperwork.

The "superiority complex" (as you describe it) of LEO's is a much more complex issue that you make it out to be. There's alot to it, much of it stemming from simple and extensive working knowledge of the law...something that most people just don't have.  Much of the rest of it is a vital psychological aspect of the job, and that's something that people have spent whole books explaining. If you care, I'm sure I can explain some of the psychological aspects of the job relating to suspect control and safety, but it really isn't usually the minset as you describe it.

This kind of ignored my entire last paragraph: why should I, doing nothing wrong, be inconvenienced and HAVE to fight something like this? It's exactly the mentality I previously talked about. You feel it shouldn't matter if the officer is wrong, because you can still take them to court and try to prove your case. I feel it should be MUCH more on the state to ensure that there is less chance of an officer dragging a taxpaying, law abiding, voting citizen into court to try and prove that they aren't a criminal.

As was pointed out elswhere, making the law subjective on purpose makes OBEYING it a moving target, as even if you ARE being legal, you can still get treated liek a criminal and run afoul of the subjectivity. Why would an officer like yourself WANT that sort of scrutiny? I woudl think you would want the ability to be vastly LESS subjective: here's what you did. Here's the proof. Have a nice day." People will still fight it, but the chances of being wrong is greatly reduced, and a lot less people woudl fight it.

You seem to assume that, with this ruling, we've pulled all of the radars out of the cars and thrown our lasers into storage because we don't need them anymore. In reality, this is going to be a pretty limited use ruling. We're still going to use known speed measurement devices to clock motorists for the vast majority of the stops. Maybe we might use visual speed estimations for people doing extreme speeds in locations where we can't get a clock with radar or laser, but I don't see this as a common occurance. And, again, I stress that oficers aren't going to write someone for a visual estimation citation of they're not sure. I don't know how many times I can say it...this really isn't subjective. The estimations are accurate. Maybe you don't realize or can't believe how accurate without seeing it, but it's true.

Truthfully, I think most officers are on the up and up. They work long hours, do a thankless job, and are simply honest people. But there have been enough issues nationwide that a citizen feels lke they are simply ATMs for politicians due to laws like this, subjective enforcemetn makes people feel victimized, and when the citizens are angry with the way theri politicians and LEOs are treating them, then the relationship between LEOS and the public is adversarial, which leads more LEOs to not be corrupt, but simply not be as careful or caring about the citizenry they are supposed to be protecting. I mean, look at the officers that are supposed to be responding to crimes like burglaries and the like. Always a cry from management and cities that they can't put enough officers on those details or respond fast enough due to budget cuts. But they can ALWAYS put massive numbers of officers out on traffic watch generating the revenue.

The police do the best job they can with the limited resources we have. I'm not sure why you think there's always money for traffic enforcement...the only regular traffic enforcement grants my department ever gets is DUI and "click it or ticket" safety belt enforcement. Most of our overtime is criminal investigation and enforcement, and you're right that there are times when we simply don't have enough cops to do that because of budget restrictions (you'd be amazed how many cops it takes to effectively patrol a small town during a rash of burglaries, for example...alot more than it takes to write seat belt tickets, that's for sure!).

You're talking about a much bigger issue than just this ruling. The simple fact is, people in the US will always be mistrustful of the police. Even if LEO's were all robots and every enforcement action was totally objective and according to the strictest letter of the law, people would mistrust the police because we are a nation based on freedom. For that reason alone, a group of people who can take away your most basic freedoms will never be wholly trusted.

[Raza]

Whether it may be uncommon or not has nothing to do with the immorality of it.

[JWC]

I know instruments existed to aid in determining this, but didn't they train WWII plane spotters to be able to identify, estimate speed, and altitude of enemy planes?

[GoCougs]

It's not that people don't trust LE, it's that moral law is an inherently adversarial system - to be enforceable law needs to be both testable and defendable.

[bing_oh]

Whether it may be uncommon or not has nothing to do with the immorality of it.

What are you referring to that's "immoral?"