From: AZ Nomad on
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 23:35:17 -0600, richard <member(a)newsguy.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 22:13:41 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:

>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:36:17 -0600, richard <member(a)newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>No dumbass.
>>
>> You of all people should refrain from calling anyone a dumbass. You've
>> proven yourself to be a dumbass about a dozen times in the past week
>> alone.
>>
>>>What they do is called "pacing". They just get behind you,
>>>match your speed, and that's good enough for the courts.
>>
>> Umm no dumbass, officers in California can use any of a number of
>> different methods to measure speed, including a visual estimation of
>> speed - for example, by measuring the time it takes a vehicle to get
>> from (known) point A to (known) point B, they can calculate the speed
>> based on the time.
>>
>> Thanks for playing, go crawl back under your bridge, troll.

>What you've just described is called VASCAR.
>Which, unlike radar, is unbeatable.

There's a huge amount of error if the collection of start and stop
times aren't mechanized as would be the case if a human is clicking a
stopwatch.
From: Brent on
On 2010-06-03, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, ernest.p.worrell(a)vernal.equinox.edu
> (T.J. Higgins) said:
>
>>"The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that an officer's visual
>>estimation of speed is enough to support a conviction if the officer
>>is trained, certified by a training academy, and experienced in
>>watching for speeders.
>>
>>"The court's 5-1 decision said independent verification of a driver's
>>speed is not necessary."
>
> Here's how you beat it in court:
>
> Call the officer to the stand and give him a test of his speed
> estimation abilities. Take a tennis ball, hold it up at head height,
> and drop it. Tell him to estimate its speed as it hits the floor. Then
> calculate the actual speed using the standard physics equation to show
> how ridiculously wrong his estimate was.

Reality: The judge stops you the moment you ask to test the officer's
speed estimation ability.


From: yD on
On Jun 2, 9:31 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS"
<josegoldb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 12:36 pm, ernest.p.worr...(a)vernal.equinox.edu (T.J. Higgins)
> wrote:
>
> > "The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that an officer's visual
> > estimation of speed is enough to support a conviction if the officer
> > is trained, certified by a training academy, and experienced in
> > watching for speeders.
>
> > "The court's 5-1 decision said independent verification of a driver's
> > speed is not necessary."
>
> > <http://www.wlwt.com/news/23767184/detail.html>
>
> > No chance for any abuse there, nosireebob...
>
> Sure, there's a chance for abuse but that applies to everything.  It's
> easy to tell when a nut like you is doing 60 in a school zone.

If the driver wants to challenge the police estimation, there's always
the 'black box' in most new cars today. But, the particular cop has to
go through some training, so it's not just like you and me saying
someone is speeding when they are, in fact, within the limit.
yD
From: Brent on
On 2010-06-04, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent
><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> said:
>
>>On 2010-06-03, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, ernest.p.worrell(a)vernal.equinox.edu
>>> (T.J. Higgins) said:
>>>
>>>>"The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that an officer's visual
>>>>estimation of speed is enough to support a conviction if the officer
>>>>is trained, certified by a training academy, and experienced in
>>>>watching for speeders.
>>>>
>>>>"The court's 5-1 decision said independent verification of a driver's
>>>>speed is not necessary."
>>>
>>> Here's how you beat it in court:
>>>
>>> Call the officer to the stand and give him a test of his speed
>>> estimation abilities. Take a tennis ball, hold it up at head height,
>>> and drop it. Tell him to estimate its speed as it hits the floor. Then
>>> calculate the actual speed using the standard physics equation to show
>>> how ridiculously wrong his estimate was.
>>
>>Reality: The judge stops you the moment you ask to test the officer's
>>speed estimation ability.
>
> Did you ever watch the "Adventures of Gulliver" cartoon when you were
> a kid? You remind me of the character "Glum" on that show.

No. But I've been to traffic court.


From: Criminal Drivers Murder 40,000 Americans a Year on
On Jun 2, 7:38 pm, lorad <lorad...(a)cs.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 9:31 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS"
>
>
>
>
>
> <josegoldb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 12:36 pm, ernest.p.worr...(a)vernal.equinox.edu (T.J. Higgins)
> > wrote:
>
> > > "The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that an officer's visual
> > > estimation of speed is enough to support a conviction if the officer
> > > is trained, certified by a training academy, and experienced in
> > > watching for speeders.
>
> > > "The court's 5-1 decision said independent verification of a driver's
> > > speed is not necessary."
>
> > > <http://www.wlwt.com/news/23767184/detail.html>
>
> > > No chance for any abuse there, nosireebob...
>
> > Sure, there's a chance for abuse but that applies to everything.  It's
> > easy to tell when a nut like you is doing 60 in a school zone.
>
> man.. you are stupid.
> future cop says: 'Man you look like a criminal, I am gonna arrest
> you'.- Hide quoted text -
>

It's no different from arresting some guy raping a women. You know it
when you see it and don't need independent verification. Think, you
idiotl