This is just lovely...

[Raza]

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

Look to Cougs's posts.  I agree with him and Chris (and others) all the way.  No point in me rehashing what's already been said so eloquently.

[Byteme]

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.

I'd guess most people think police are honest until they get a ticket then they start believing all cops are dishonest.  It stems from the the feeling that "other people, not me, are the ones that deserve a ticket".

I'm not as concerned with a cop being dishonest as I am with their ability to correctly estimate speed inthe real world.   You point out that trained officers can probably estimate speed to within 3 or 4 MPH.  Even if I buy that, and I don't (it may hold true in a training situation under controlled conditions but the margin or error probably goes up in the real world) that is too wide a spread for a state which has a reputation for rigerous speed limit enforcement and citing people for going 1 mph over the posted limit.

Speeding is one crime which in reality the accused is pretty much assumed to be guilty unless they can prove they are innocent.  With mechanical aids such as aerial tracking and the use of radar or laser guns there is at least a standard of measurement that should, if properly used, be accurate and irrefutable.  With a cop looking at a car and deciding he is going too fast there are too many other variables. 

Reminds me of Ron Luciano's (former major league umpire) discussing the first time he umpired with Nolan Ryan was pitching.  He said he never really saw the ball properly.  His call?  "Sounded high to me".   

Ever been in a pack of people all going under the limit?  I virtually guarantee you if you went the limit in that situation you'd appear to be speeding.   Never happens?  Happened to me this morning.  Tow truck on the shoulder on the other side of the freeway.  Speed limit is 60.  Everybody slows to 50 to check out the action.  I've seen a tow truck before so I keep going 60.  I'd bet that to 99 out of 100 cops I would have appeared to been speeding in that situation.

I can also tell you about the time I was in the E-type (bright red sports car, quite noticable) in a pack of family sedans and SUV's all going over the limit and I was being passed by them all; I was the slowest of the pack.  Want three guess for who got pulled over?  When I asked the officer why he pulled me over and let the faster cars go he said "You stood out".  $150 and defensive driving as punishment for driving a nice car.     Some cops are dicks, most aren't.

[bing_oh]

I'm not as concerned with a cop being dishonest as I am with their ability to correctly estimate speed inthe real world.   You point out that trained officers can probably estimate speed to within 3 or 4 MPH.  Even if I buy that, and I don't (it may hold true in a training situation under controlled conditions but the margin or error probably goes up in the real world) that is too wide a spread for a state which has a reputation for rigerous speed limit enforcement and citing people for going 1 mph over the posted limit.

Let me explain something about visual speed estimation and the training associated with it. First, it's something that I've been doing since the beginning of my career. Let me reitterate...visual speed estimation is a required part of legal, valid radar enforcement. If my visual speed estimate does not match the speed on the radar, I have to assume an error and can not stop the vehicle. That means that I and the hundreds of thousands of other officers who use radar every day also use visual speed estimation every day. Second, I was not trained by watching cars on a TV screen or some other classroom-based training. The practical training in visual speed estimation is in the cruiser, with a radar training officer in the passenger seat controlling the radar, and telling me to visually estimate speeds of real-life vehicles in real-life traffic conditions. In other words, I was doing exactly what I now do every day in real life while running radar.

Quite simply, you can doubt the accuracy of visual speed estimation as much as you like and nothing I have to say will change your mind. But, I can tell you it's generally accurate and consistant.

Oh, and, just for the record, I've heard of people getting tickets for 1 mph over the speed limit (the stories usually involve Oakwood, a rich suburb of Dayton), but I've never seen it and seriously doubt the accuracy of those stories. There isn't a single speed measurement device whose manufacturer will guarantee that degree of accuracy, making any such citation a loser for the officer in court.

[bing_oh]

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

There's nothing "immoral" about it. It's a generally accurate and consistant form of speed enforcement. It's no more "immoral" than any other form of law enforcement that requires the training and experience of a LEO over that of a mechanical or electronic device to determine something.

[Raza]

There's nothing "immoral" about it. It's a generally accurate and consistant form of speed enforcement. It's no more "immoral" than any other form of law enforcement that requires the training and experience of a LEO over that of a mechanical or electronic device to determine something.

You yourself mentioned that visual speed estimation is required before using a radar system (while I've seen actions to the contrary, I'll take your evaluation as generally correct).  So let's walk through my understanding of how a traffic ticket is issued:

1.  Cop sees car.
2.  Cop estimates speed of said car.
3.  If the car appears to be going over the speed limit, check with radar.
4.  If the car is indeed going over the limit, decide to pull over.

And so on. 

So, clearly, radar exists and is in use because visual estimation is not as accurate as radar.  That's seems pretty obvious to me.  And you, too, I imagine.  And everyone else around here too.  Yet, you dogmatically defend this idiotic decision to make radar unnecessary to generate a traffic ticket.  You've heard the old adage "measure twice, cut once"?  Well, this works the same way.  A ticker should not be issued unless there is concrete, repeatable, and generally irrefutable evidence that the law is being broken.  Humans are fallible (as are machines, but with a much lower rate) and there must be a system of checks and balances in place.  This removes that system.  I shouldn't be surprised that you, a cop, are okay with this, and yet... 

[Byteme]

Let me explain something about visual speed estimation and the training associated with it. First, it's something that I've been doing since the beginning of my career. Let me reitterate...visual speed estimation is a required part of legal, valid radar enforcement. If my visual speed estimate does not match the speed on the radar, I have to assume an error and can not stop the vehicle. That means that I and the hundreds of thousands of other officers who use radar every day also use visual speed estimation every day. Second, I was not trained by watching cars on a TV screen or some other classroom-based training. The practical training in visual speed estimation is in the cruiser, with a radar training officer in the passenger seat controlling the radar, and telling me to visually estimate speeds of real-life vehicles in real-life traffic conditions. In other words, I was doing exactly what I now do every day in real life while running radar.

Quite simply, you can doubt the accuracy of visual speed estimation as much as you like and nothing I have to say will change your mind. But, I can tell you it's generally accurate and consistant.

You said it yourself.  It's a required part of valid radar enforcement.  If you give the cops the ability to fully rely on their visual estimates you take away the validation part of the equation.    And like I said, in some jurisdictions that margin of error you reference could mean the difference between an innocent driver getting or not getting a ticket.

And I don't know what department you work for but I'd be surprised if the cops in Mayberry undergo the rigerous training you seem to have experienced.

I'm all for reasonable enformcement of speed limits, but make it quantifiable. I doubt the average cop has been trained in all atmosphic conditions, at all angles of traffic to his position - both with oncoming and receding traffic, in all lighting conditions, in all weather.  And in training the cop is on his toes, he's trying his best to perform to meet expectations; to pass with a high grade and impress his superiors.  That incentive goes away in the real world where 'par" is good enough.

I'd love to see a blind study that compares cops esitmates of speed with verified data.  Do you know of any, other than your personal experience?

[bing_oh]

To address both Raza And EtypeJohn, the visual speed estimation part of radar enforcement is actually there to detect specific known radar errors. Visual estimation is a check on the accuracy of the radar, not the other way around.

[bing_oh]

So, clearly, radar exists and is in use because visual estimation is not as accurate as radar.  That's seems pretty obvious to me.  And you, too, I imagine.  And everyone else around here too.  Yet, you dogmatically defend this idiotic decision to make radar unnecessary to generate a traffic ticket.  You've heard the old adage "measure twice, cut once"?  Well, this works the same way.  A ticker should not be issued unless there is concrete, repeatable, and generally irrefutable evidence that the law is being broken.  Humans are fallible (as are machines, but with a much lower rate) and there must be a system of checks and balances in place.  This removes that system.  I shouldn't be surprised that you, a cop, are okay with this, and yet...

When laser came out, radar did not become outmoded and replaced, even though laser is considered an even more accurate form of speed detection. Why? Because each has its stregnths and weaknesses. A newer or easier way to detect speed does not necessarily mean that the older way isn't still valid. You can still get an accurate speed using VASCAR, for example, even though it's rarely used by anyone but aircraft speed enforcement today. Radar and laser are easier to use than VASCAR, but that doesn't mean that VASCAR isn't an accurate form of speed measurement. So, your assumption that radar exists and is in use because visual speed estimation is inaccurate is simply not a sustainable argument. Being replaced with something "bigger and better" doesn't necessarily mean that the old ways are no longer valid.

[bing_oh]

And I don't know what department you work for but I'd be surprised if the cops in Mayberry undergo the rigerous training you seem to have experienced.

Quite frankly, I've worked in various versions of "Mayberry" for most of my career. I've never worked in a jurisdiction that would qualify as larger than a small city, and yet I have the training and experience to easily to repeatable, accurate visual speed estimation.

I'm all for reasonable enformcement of speed limits, but make it quantifiable. I doubt the average cop has been trained in all atmosphic conditions, at all angles of traffic to his position - both with oncoming and receding traffic, in all lighting conditions, in all weather.  And in training the cop is on his toes, he's trying his best to perform to meet expectations; to pass with a high grade and impress his superiors.  That incentive goes away in the real world where 'par" is good enough.

I'd love to see a blind study that compares cops esitmates of speed with verified data.  Do you know of any, other than your personal experience?

If you've ever been on the stand, being cross-examined by a defense lawyer about your training and experience to support an arrest, you'd realize that field training is nothing in comparison to that stress-wise. For that reason alone, any decent cop does his or her best in the field. Not to mention that most LEO's are pretty big on fair enforcement of the law and personal freedom...citing or arresting someone who doesn't deserve it is a very personal black mark for most officers.

I have no idea if there have ever been any blind studies comparing visual speed estimation to verified speeds. None that I've ever seen, but who knows if OPOTA (who dictates training for LEO's in Ohio) or some other training commission or other organization has ever done it.

[rohan]

Quite frankly, I've worked in various versions of "Mayberry" for most of my career. I've never worked in a jurisdiction that would qualify as larger than a small city, and yet I have the training and experience to easily to repeatable, accurate visual speed estimation.

If you've ever been on the stand, being cross-examined by a defense lawyer about your training and experience to support an arrest, you'd realize that field training is nothing in comparison to that stress-wise. For that reason alone, any decent cop does his or her best in the field. Not to mention that most LEO's are pretty big on fair enforcement of the law and personal freedom...citing or arresting someone who doesn't deserve it is a very personal black mark for most officers.

I have no idea if there have ever been any blind studies comparing visual speed estimation to verified speeds. None that I've ever seen, but who knows if OPOTA (who dictates training for LEO's in Ohio) or some other training commission or other organization has ever done it.

A couple things I'ld like to add.  Like I said many states have had this law for decades and it's never been a problem- sure there've likely been cases where the officer was out to get someone but that's gonna happen with the radar like Bing already pointed out.  The wide ranging majority of cops out here are good honest hard working folks who do their best to- well- do their best.  We're human and we make mistakes- shit happens.  To run out and say that people are gonna be pasted with false tickets is nothing short of juvenile antics by grown adults.  Bad cops will always exist- there's absolutely no way of weeding them all out and then there's not always enough evidence to have them fired and make it stick once unions get involved.  Shit happens.

I also want to say that I will move away from Bing slightly that the smaller the town the less likely the officers receive the best training.  Big departments are even worse.  It's the middle size departments- 25-100 officers that usually  do the very best training because they have money but aren't so over loaded they can't find people to cover shifts of guys getting training.  I worked in one of the larger departments in the country as you all know and we got crappy training- and that was before the extreme budget woes.  I haven't worked the road strictly in 3 years now and I can still estamate withing 3mph almost every single time.  Yeah there's crackpot cops out there just like there are crackpots where each and everyone of you works.   Your best defense is to pay close attention and don't travel too fast- and challenge the officer to explain the process he uses to estimate speeds- in court never on the side of the road there you just take the ticket- smile and thank him for his time.  Guys who are doing it right will have a very detailed explenation- guys who are guessing- weeeeeell- they're just guessing.  People like Raza who are of the belief that all law enforcement is out to get him- well- maybe they really are.

[Byteme]

If you've ever been on the stand, being cross-examined by a defense lawyer about your training and experience to support an arrest, you'd realize that field training is nothing in comparison to that stress-wise. For that reason alone, any decent cop does his or her best in the field. Not to mention that most LEO's are pretty big on fair enforcement of the law and personal freedom...citing or arresting someone who doesn't deserve it is a very personal black mark for most officers.

I have no idea if there have ever been any blind studies comparing visual speed estimation to verified speeds. None that I've ever seen, but who knows if OPOTA (who dictates training for LEO's in Ohio) or some other training commission or other organization has ever done it.

Do you periodically undergo retraining in the area of visual speed estimation?  Are you periodically checked to endure your skills are still sharp?  I mean, if you could estimate speed within 3-4 MPH visually, say 8 years ago, when you were trained how do you know you still have that level of skill today?

If you happen to run across such a study I'd suspect we would all be interested in it's findings.

Thanks.

[bing_oh]

Do you periodically undergo retraining in the area of visual speed estimation?  Are you periodically checked to endure your skills are still sharp?  I mean, if you could estimate speed within 3-4 MPH visually, say 8 years ago, when you were trained how do you know you still have that level of skill today?

If you happen to run across such a study I'd suspect we would all be interested in it's findings.

Thanks.

I know I still have those skills today (actually, my skills are probably better today than they were when I was trained because of experience) because I use them every day. Like I said, visual speed estimation is part of radar enforcement. But, no, I don't get retrained or rechecked periodically...I'm lucky to get retrained in self defense or legal updates anymore, given the practically nonexistant training budgets we have to contend with.

[Byteme]

I know I still have those skills today (actually, my skills are probably better today than they were when I was trained because of experience) because I use them every day. Like I said, visual speed estimation is part of radar enforcement. But, no, I don't get retrained or rechecked periodically...I'm lucky to get retrained in self defense or legal updates anymore, given the practically nonexistant training budgets we have to contend with.

Right,  You get a reinforcement of your skills every time you visually estimate someone's speed and then verify it with a radar or laser gun.  My observation is the cops in Ohio may no longer have that advantage since they now no longer need an electronic device to verify their visual assessment.

Like you said, and I tend to agree, most cops are honest hardworking folks trying to do the best job they can.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to not give them the proper tools for their job and tell them to just eyeball it.  What's next for Ohio, eliminate the crime labs and resort to "well we found curly black hair at the crime scene and the guy we picked up looked like he had curly black hair"?

One question I haven't seen disucssed here is why would Ohio want this practice in place?  The only reason I can think of is they can write the same number of tickets as they do now (no revenue reduction) without the expense of buying radar and laser guns.  That and eliminating radar and laser guns from the equation give the defendent one less thing to question in court.  Same revenue at less cost and less for the defendent to argue about = more convictions.  It now comes down to the testimony of an officer, a professional purportedly properly trained and motivated, who has no reason to distort the evidence,  against a motorist, a layman who has every reason to lie about their speed at that time.  Like I said, in traffic court you are virtually presumed guilty and have to prove your innocence; this just makes it harder for someone truely innocent to do so.


A long time ago I was told by a Missouri State Trooper I knew that they were suppose to visually pick out those who they felt were speeding and then verify that visuial assessment with the radar gun.   It was improper procedure to just point the radar gun at people and wave over the ones going over the limit without first making a visual assessment.  Was I given a line of bull or is that pretty much the way it's suppost to work?

Thanks again.

[bing_oh]

Right,  You get a reinforcement of your skills every time you visually estimate someone's speed and then verify it with a radar or laser gun.  My observation is the cops in Ohio may no longer have that advantage since they now no longer need an electronic device to verify their visual assessment.

Like you said, and I tend to agree, most cops are honest hardworking folks trying to do the best job they can.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to not give them the proper tools for their job and tell them to just eyeball it.  What's next for Ohio, eliminate the crime labs and resort to "well we found curly black hair at the crime scene and the guy we picked up looked like he had curly black hair"?

One question I haven't seen disucssed here is why would Ohio want this practice in place?  The only reason I can think of is they can write the same number of tickets as they do now (no revenue reduction) without the expense of buying radar and laser guns.  That and eliminating radar and laser guns from the equation give the defendent one less thing to question in court.  Same revenue at less cost and less for the defendent to argue about = more convictions.  It now comes down to the testimony of an officer, a professional purportedly properly trained and motivated, who has no reason to distort the evidence,  against a motorist, a layman who has every reason to lie about their speed at that time.  Like I said, in traffic court you are virtually presumed guilty and have to prove your innocence; this just makes it harder for someone truely innocent to do so.

Let me just say, for the record, Ohio PD's aren't going to trash their radars and lasers because of this ruling. Just ain't gonna happen. If departments were going to do that for cost-savings reasons, we'd all be issued $2 WalMart stopwatches and ordered to use VASCAR. There's no PD in this country who would voluntarily give up a usable tool unless they absolutely had to...and only then, kicking and screaming.

Let me put it this way: radar is like fingerprints and laser is like DNA. I don't need either to prove a case, but I sure do like them because it makes the case that much easier to prove in court. With radar or laser, all I have to do is show that I've been trained, that the radar or laser was checked and passed calibration checks, and that I used it as I was trained. Once I do that,  the speed measurement is golden. Now, imagine that I go into court with a visual speed estimation and the judge or jury has a doubt that I can do this amazing feat and do it consistantly. Now, I have to explain to them how I was trained and how that training permits me to do a visual speed estimation that is accurate, repeatable, and more than just a guess. Wanna guess how easy that's gonna be?

Visual speed estimation is for specific circumstances. If I'm on a side street and at the wrong angle for radar? Visual speed estimation. If I'm moving, thus making laser unusable, and don't have a radar? Visual speed estimation. If it's a "snapshot" situation where I can't get into the proper position to use radar or laser? Visual speed estimation. Otherwise, I'm gonna be using the electronic method.

A long time ago I was told by a Missouri State Trooper I knew that they were suppose to visually pick out those who they felt were speeding and then verify that visuial assessment with the radar gun.   It was improper procedure to just point the radar gun at people and wave over the ones going over the limit without first making a visual assessment.  Was I given a line of bull or is that pretty much the way it's suppost to work?

Thanks again.

Yes, it's true that a visual estimate must be made before the radar is used to clock a vehicle. That's what I was saying about visual speed estimation being a part of radar enforcement.

[dazzleman]

This topic has generated some really verbose discussion.

[bing_oh]

This topic has generated some really verbose discussion.

I've never been called a loudmouth blowhard in such a kind way, Daz. Thanks!

[dazzleman]

I've never been called a loudmouth blowhard in such a kind way, Daz. Thanks!

I'm a master of the velvet-glove knockout, dude....

I'd make a few comments, but I hate to add fuel to the fire.  It seems to be a hotly debated topic.  You're surely not the only dude in here with strong opinions.

[Raza]

Let me just say, for the record, Ohio PD's aren't going to trash their radars and lasers because of this ruling. Just ain't gonna happen. If departments were going to do that for cost-savings reasons, we'd all be issued $2 WalMart stopwatches and ordered to use VASCAR. There's no PD in this country who would voluntarily give up a usable tool unless they absolutely had to...and only then, kicking and screaming.

Let me put it this way: radar is like fingerprints and laser is like DNA. I don't need either to prove a case, but I sure do like them because it makes the case that much easier to prove in court. With radar or laser, all I have to do is show that I've been trained, that the radar or laser was checked and passed calibration checks, and that I used it as I was trained. Once I do that,  the speed measurement is golden. Now, imagine that I go into court with a visual speed estimation and the judge or jury has a doubt that I can do this amazing feat and do it consistantly. Now, I have to explain to them how I was trained and how that training permits me to do a visual speed estimation that is accurate, repeatable, and more than just a guess. Wanna guess how easy that's gonna be?

Visual speed estimation is for specific circumstances. If I'm on a side street and at the wrong angle for radar? Visual speed estimation. If I'm moving, thus making laser unusable, and don't have a radar? Visual speed estimation. If it's a "snapshot" situation where I can't get into the proper position to use radar or laser? Visual speed estimation. Otherwise, I'm gonna be using the electronic method.

Yes, it's true that a visual estimate must be made before the radar is used to clock a vehicle. That's what I was saying about visual speed estimation being a part of radar enforcement.

Yeah, I can't wait for that.  "I was at a funny angle, so the radar wouldn't work.  But I know he was doing 31 in a 25."



I'm beginning to lose patience with this argument.  It's clear that you're fine with whatever is done in favor of your own cause, regardless of its validity.  And yet, you keep disproving your own argument by saying time and again that visual estimation is part of the process, and yet, you defend it as being able to be the only part of the process.  That's like saying a trial is only part of the judicial process, but it's fine to skip it and go straight from arrest to the electric chair.

[dazzleman]

Yeah, I can't wait for that.  "I was at a funny angle, so the radar wouldn't work.  But I know he was doing 31 in a 25."



I'm beginning to lose patience with this argument.  It's clear that you're fine with whatever is done in favor of your own cause, regardless of its validity.  And yet, you keep disproving your own argument by saying time and again that visual estimation is part of the process, and yet, you defend it as being able to be the only part of the process.  That's like saying a trial is only part of the judicial process, but it's fine to skip it and go straight from arrest to the electric chair.

Against my better judgment, I'll throw in my 2 cents.  I don't think visual estimation alone should be acceptable proof for speeding, except in the most extreme circumstances (in other words, more of a reckless driving scenario).

[Tave]

Yes, an experienced officer writes a ticket knowing well the rigorous scrutiny it may have to stand up to in court, but let's be honest here: most people don't even go to court to answer for their tickets, and fewer still actually have a trial or call witnesses. It simply isn't worth the time/money to contest. Once a ticket is written, the driver faces an uphill, inefficient battle.

If nothing else, radar serves a useful purpose for the public, because (In my completely unscientific, unproven opinion) a person is less likely to challenge a ticket based off radar than visual estimation. Not only does this save the individual's time, but it saves the court's time as well (i.e. our taxdollars).

[dazzleman]

Yes, an experienced officer writes a ticket knowing well the rigorous scrutiny it may have to stand up to in court, but let's be honest here: most people don't even go to court to answer for their tickets, and fewer still actually have a trial or call witnesses. It simply isn't worth the time/money to contest. Once the ticket is written, it is an uphill, inefficient battle to fight.

If nothing else, radar serves a useful purpose for the public, because (In my completely unscientific, unproven opinion) a person is less likely to challenge a ticket based off radar than visual estimation. Not only does this save the individual's time, but it saves the court's time as well (i.e. our taxdollars).

If they keep pushing the fines high enough in some places, a lot more people will start to contest their tickets.

[bing_oh]

I'm a master of the velvet-glove knockout, dude....

I'd make a few comments, but I hate to add fuel to the fire.  It seems to be a hotly debated topic.  You're surely not the only dude in here with strong opinions.

Am I ever? It seems that I always get into the strong-minded arguments.

[bing_oh]

Yeah, I can't wait for that.  "I was at a funny angle, so the radar wouldn't work.  But I know he was doing 31 in a 25."

How interesting that your sarcasm is actually factual...first time for everything, I suppose. Radar at extreme angles actually can raise or lower the measured speed...it's one of the known radar errors that we're trained to look for. With visual speed estimation, ironically.

I'm beginning to lose patience with this argument.  It's clear that you're fine with whatever is done in favor of your own cause, regardless of its validity.  And yet, you keep disproving your own argument by saying time and again that visual estimation is part of the process, and yet, you defend it as being able to be the only part of the process.  That's like saying a trial is only part of the judicial process, but it's fine to skip it and go straight from arrest to the electric chair.

It's part of the radar and laser process because it's designed to detect known errors in both devices. In other words, it's accurate enough to actually be a check electronic speed measurement. That fact actually supports my argument, not contradict it.

[Raza]

How interesting that your sarcasm is actually factual...first time for everything, I suppose. Radar at extreme angles actually can raise or lower the measured speed...it's one of the known radar errors that we're trained to look for. With visual speed estimation, ironically.

I know that's true.  But that wasn't the point of the statement.  It's absurd to think that a human being can pinpoint a car's speed within a mile per hour consistently and repeatably. 

It's part of the radar and laser process because it's designed to detect known errors in both devices. In other words, it's accurate enough to actually be a check electronic speed measurement. That fact actually supports my argument, not contradict it.

Not really.  But whatever.  I respect your opinion anyway.  Generally.  Not here.  Here I think you're just brainwashed.

[bing_oh]

I know that's true.  But that wasn't the point of the statement.  It's absurd to think that a human being can pinpoint a car's speed within a mile per hour consistently and repeatably.  

Not really.  But whatever.  I respect your opinion anyway.  Generally.  Not here.  Here I think you're just brainwashed.

OK. I mean, I do it every day so I know that I'm not brainwashed, but you can doubt it if you like. Hell, I've never changed your mind on anything, Raza. I really didn't expect to start now.

[dazzleman]

Bing_oh, if you pulled Raza over for speeding, would you ticket him or let hom off with a warning?

[bing_oh]

Bing_oh, if you pulled Raza over for speeding, would you ticket him or let hom off with a warning?

Ha! I have little doubt that Raza would be one of those people who would talk themselves into a ticket.

[dazzleman]

Not so sure about that.  Raza caught a major break from a cop once.  He's a cool guy.

[James Young]

On June 05, 2010, 08:39:17 AM,  bing_oh writes:  {Would 10 officers give you 10 different speed estimations on the same vehicle? Maybe...but I'm betting that, if [LEOs are] properly trained and experienced, they'd all be within a 3-5 mph margin of error.}
 
+   Exactly how is this training conducted?  
+   What materials are used?  
+   Are the materials descriptive or prescriptive?
+   Are they published?
+   Who is the author?
+   What are the specific techniques taught by the instructors?
+   Who designed those techniques?
+   Have the techniques been subjected to double blind testing?
+   What testing techniques are utilized to verify the ability?
+   Who conducts the training?
+   Who conducts the testing?
+   What are the standards used to determine what is certifiable and what is rejected as inadequate?  Based on absolute or percentage differences?
+   How many different schema are tested? E.g., stationary with target approaching, receding, crossing perpendicular, crossing transverse; moving patrol with target approaching, receding, crossing perpendicular, crossing transverse.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I can visually estimate speed pretty well, and I'm not even trained. I just think the current state speed enforcement as a whole is wrong.