Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-04-2019, 09:11 PM
Jinx is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Lost In Space
Posts: 8,084

"Checked by Radar"


This may be a long shot: I understand, when radar was new technology, the public was not given full disclosure about the use of radar to monitor speed. And, while there may have been a precedent-setting court case in multiple States, how can I find such a case in my State? For starters, is what I am seeking deemed "Case Law"? And, where would I begin to find Case Law cases? If I could cite such a case, it would strengthen my argument in a similar situation. Thanks!
  #2  
Old 11-04-2019, 10:01 PM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,348
What state are you in?
  #3  
Old 11-04-2019, 10:23 PM
steatopygia's Avatar
steatopygia is offline
Experimental FOC Test Pilot
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: North Idaho mostly
Posts: 1,876
Just pay the ticket.
  #4  
Old 11-04-2019, 10:32 PM
TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,769
If what you're looking for is something that makes checking your speed by radar illegal, you're just going to get laughed at in court, like the sovereign citizen types do when they try to claim income taxes are illegal because of some historical irrelevancy.

(And law enforcement is under no obligation to provide "full disclosure" of their methods and tools in any case.)

Just pay the ticket.

Last edited by TimeWinder; 11-04-2019 at 10:34 PM.
  #5  
Old 11-04-2019, 10:38 PM
burpo the wonder mutt's Avatar
burpo the wonder mutt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Slow-cala, Florida
Posts: 24,653

"Checked by Radar"


Col. Blake says to pay the ticket.
__________________
ďI don't know what my body is for, other than taking my head from room to roomĒ - John Mulaney
  #6  
Old 11-08-2019, 10:52 AM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by burpo the wonder mutt View Post

"Checked by Radar"

Col. Blake says to pay the ticket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Except all of those cases, like Honeycutt, were all at state levels.

I guess BJ didn't take Col. Blake's advice.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #7  
Old 11-05-2019, 12:41 AM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 744
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeWinder View Post
If what you're looking for is something that makes checking your speed by radar illegal, you're just going to get laughed at in court, like the sovereign citizen types do when they try to claim income taxes are illegal because of some historical irrelevancy.
Actually, a former coworker did once successfully get out of a speeding ticket by going to court and arguing that because the road where he was stopped did not have "speed checked by radar" signs posted it was illegal for the officer to use radar on that road, which was what he had written on the section of the ticket for how he had measured his speed.

Everyone else at the office thought he should have just paid the ticket, but his argument did actually work in court.
  #8  
Old 11-05-2019, 01:11 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildaBeast View Post
Actually, a former coworker did once successfully get out of a speeding ticket by going to court and arguing that because the road where he was stopped did not have "speed checked by radar" signs posted it was illegal for the officer to use radar on that road, which was what he had written on the section of the ticket for how he had measured his speed.


Do you know this to be fact or did he just say that's what happened to his case?

Where did this take place? Is there an actual statute there that mandates the signs be present? As posted earlier those signs are to warn drivers that speed enforcement will take place (and persuade voluntary compliance) and aren't mandated by law. But YMMV depending on the state.
  #9  
Old 11-06-2019, 09:15 AM
BwanaBob's Avatar
BwanaBob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 4,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildaBeast View Post
Actually, a former coworker did once successfully get out of a speeding ticket by going to court and arguing that because the road where he was stopped did not have "speed checked by radar" signs posted it was illegal for the officer to use radar on that road, which was what he had written on the section of the ticket for how he had measured his speed.

Everyone else at the office thought he should have just paid the ticket, but his argument did actually work in court.
I have to challenge this. Using that logic, every road would have to have signs saying speed checked by police timings and you know damn well those signs don't exist and millions of tickets have ensued. There is no "illegal" to use radar statute.
__________________
Go wherever you can be
And live for the day
It's only wear and tear
-IQ

Last edited by BwanaBob; 11-06-2019 at 09:15 AM.
  #10  
Old 11-04-2019, 10:36 PM
hajario's Avatar
hajario is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 16,144
No. You broke the law. Pay the ticket.
  #11  
Old 11-04-2019, 10:43 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,976
When radar was new technology, there were already various ways to check for speeding. The oner sign I remember most clearly was "Speed Checked By Aircraft." Yes, the Highway Patrol literally flew over the highway and timed you as you passed mile markers.

The signs were NOT there to make it magically legal to track your speeding that way. They were there to warn you that you couldn't count on the presence or absence of a police car in your rear view mirror or on the side of the road as a clue that you would be pulled over.
  #12  
Old 11-04-2019, 10:56 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
When radar was new technology, there were already various ways to check for speeding. The oner sign I remember most clearly was "Speed Checked By Aircraft." Yes, the Highway Patrol literally flew over the highway and timed you as you passed mile markers.
They still do that. Got a ticket about five years ago for speeding. The motorcycle cop writing the ticket said I'd been clocked by a police airplane.
  #13  
Old 11-04-2019, 10:59 PM
steatopygia's Avatar
steatopygia is offline
Experimental FOC Test Pilot
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: North Idaho mostly
Posts: 1,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
They still do that. Got a ticket about five years ago for speeding. The motorcycle cop writing the ticket said I'd been clocked by a police airplane.
How many tickets do they have to write for that to be cost efficient? Rhetorical question.
  #14  
Old 11-05-2019, 12:23 AM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by steatopygia View Post
How many tickets do they have to write for that to be cost efficient? Rhetorical question.
But the rhetoric implies an assumption which can be identified and challenged. The return from enforcement of speeding laws is not simply, or even mainly, the revenue from tickets, but the societal gain from increased compliance with speed limits - fewer accidents, fewer deaths, better traffic flow with less delay, reduced carbon outputs, etc. Thus the cost efficiency of the enforcement is only partly related to the number of speeding tickets issued. Indeed, if the enforcement were 100% effective no speeding tickets at all would be issued, but the societal gain would be considerable.
  #15  
Old 11-05-2019, 12:28 AM
steatopygia's Avatar
steatopygia is offline
Experimental FOC Test Pilot
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: North Idaho mostly
Posts: 1,876
Absolutely true, all of it.
However, , is it more efficient, cost or otherwise, to patrol from a plane?
  #16  
Old 11-05-2019, 10:24 AM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
societal gain from increased compliance with speed limits - fewer accidents, fewer deaths, better traffic flow with less delay, reduced carbon outputs, etc.
Do you have a cite for these benefits? And for the contention that police issuing tickets for speeding increases compliance?
  #17  
Old 11-05-2019, 12:36 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by steatopygia View Post
How many tickets do they have to write for that to be cost efficient? Rhetorical question.
Generally when aircraft is utilized enforcement is done in a bulk operation. Several squads are daisy chained on a bridge or entrance ramp. The method of clocking in the plane is usually VASCAR. 10-20 cites per hour can be issued easily.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mixdenny View Post
When RADAR speed was new technology each case had to be proven in court with expert witnesses. After enough cases were proven RADAR was given judicial notice which meant that the court understood that the technology worked. The state still has to prove the case using whatever evidence they present, but not how the equipment works. This point was passed looong ago.
Except all of those cases, like Honeycutt, were all at state levels. I know of no federal court or SCOTUS ruling on radar that would set a national standard.
  #18  
Old 11-05-2019, 10:13 AM
Patch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In my house
Posts: 2,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Generally when aircraft is utilized enforcement is done in a bulk operation. Several squads are daisy chained on a bridge or entrance ramp. The method of clocking in the plane is usually VASCAR. 10-20 cites per hour can be issued easily.
I've seen groups of officers working with planes not just pull over one car, but pull over platoons of cars. Everyone from the red Ford Ranger to the white Dodge charger is speeding? Grab them all.
  #19  
Old 11-05-2019, 12:43 PM
minor7flat5's Avatar
minor7flat5 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Trenton, NJ
Posts: 4,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
They still do that. Got a ticket about five years ago for speeding. The motorcycle cop writing the ticket said I'd been clocked by a police airplane.
I thought they still did that with a stopwatch and those white hash marks on the side of the road every quarter mile or so.
I'm sure that is still done in lots of places, but this particular video shows more sophisticated stuff going on:

Speed Enforcement by Aircraft: View From The Plane (speed enforcement starts at 2:50 or so).

I wanted to see more actual speed enforcement, but they spend most of the video flying over urban areas and observing stuff.
It's pretty neat how they have the augmented reality going on there.

It looks like the officer is clicking waypoints as he watches traffic and GPS + maps are used to figure out the actual distances instead of relying on pre-measured sections of road with hash marks.
  #20  
Old 11-05-2019, 01:21 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by minor7flat5 View Post
I thought they still did that with a stopwatch and those white hash marks on the side of the road every quarter mile or so.
By "clocked," I just meant "noticed." I don't have any idea what specific tech the airplane used to determine I was speeding.
  #21  
Old 11-05-2019, 03:43 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
By "clocked," I just meant "noticed." I don't have any idea what specific tech the airplane used to determine I was speeding.
If it happened anytime in the last 40 years odds are high that it was VASCAR.
  #22  
Old 11-05-2019, 10:49 AM
DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 5,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
The oner sign I remember most clearly was "Speed Checked By Aircraft."
Around here the signs say Speed Enforced by Aircraft which brings to mind strafing runs.
  #23  
Old 11-05-2019, 11:17 AM
KneadToKnow is offline
Voodoo Adult (Slight Return)
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Posts: 26,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertDog View Post
Around here the signs say Speed Enforced by Aircraft which brings to mind strafing runs.
I saw one of those on my first drive into either Georgia or Florida, and that was exactly the image it called to my mind.
  #24  
Old 11-05-2019, 11:32 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 33,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertDog View Post
Around here the signs say Speed Enforced by Aircraft which brings to mind strafing runs.
When I was a kid, I thought the planes that caught you speeding would land on the highway and ticket you.
  #25  
Old 11-05-2019, 05:52 PM
gotpasswords is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: San Francisco area
Posts: 16,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker
When I was a kid, I thought the planes that caught you speeding would land on the highway and ticket you.
That's actually possible on long stretches of 5 in central California. Ruler-straight and flat for miles.

Local trivia: Harris Ranch (a decades-old steakhouse in Coalinga) has an airstrip and is very popular with the CHP pilots for lunch.
  #26  
Old 11-04-2019, 10:58 PM
RealityChuck's Avatar
RealityChuck is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 42,922
The point of the signs was they make drivers think that cops might be patrolling the road and thus drive more slowly. Most of the time, no one was checking.
__________________
"If a person saying he was something was all there was to it, this country'd be full of rich men and good-looking women. Too bad it isn't that easy.... In short, when someone else says you're a writer, that's when you're a writer... not before."
Purveyor of fine science fiction since 1982.
  #27  
Old 11-04-2019, 11:39 PM
mixdenny is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Cleveland suburbs
Posts: 2,026
When RADAR speed was new technology each case had to be proven in court with expert witnesses. After enough cases were proven RADAR was given judicial notice which meant that the court understood that the technology worked. The state still has to prove the case using whatever evidence they present, but not how the equipment works. This point was passed looong ago.

LIDAR was going through the same stage about 15 years ago. I worked with a laser expert who testified for defendants. He used to talk about each case. I guess LIDAR is now proven as well.

Dennis
  #28  
Old 11-04-2019, 11:54 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinx View Post
If I could cite such a case, it would strengthen my argument in a similar situation.
Since this is about a specific legal case, it's more appropriate for IMHO.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator
  #29  
Old 11-04-2019, 11:55 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by steatopygia View Post
Just pay the ticket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeWinder View Post
Just pay the ticket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajario View Post
No. You broke the law. Pay the ticket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burpo the wonder mutt View Post
Col. Blake says to pay the ticket.
Now that we're in IMHO:

Just pay the ticket.
  #30  
Old 11-05-2019, 07:05 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 33,031
Explain to the judge that you were traveling not driving.
  #31  
Old 11-05-2019, 10:09 AM
Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,479
It is probably just me, but I always read that sign with meaning number 2:

check:
stop or slow down the progress of
Similar: halt, stop, bring to a standstill

Them's powerful radar waves - they can make your car slow down, like driving into a strong wind. A radio wind!
  #32  
Old 11-05-2019, 12:42 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Asking Questions View Post
It is probably just me, but I always read that sign with meaning number 2:

check:
stop or slow down the progress of
Similar: halt, stop, bring to a standstill

Them's powerful radar waves - they can make your car slow down, like driving into a strong wind. A radio wind!
Similarly, I like to read the "fine" in "$200 FINE FOR LITTERING" to mean, "acceptable or appropriate." But I've usually got something better to use that $200 on than scattering it along the freeway.
  #33  
Old 11-05-2019, 10:14 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,446
Well, sure, JAQ, but the sign doesn't say how much the radar slows you down. But those radio waves do still impart a nonzero momentum to your car.

(though this does still depend on the cop aiming the radar gun at you as you're approaching him, not after you pass him)
  #34  
Old 11-05-2019, 10:21 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinx View Post
This may be a long shot: I understand, when radar was new technology, the public was not given full disclosure about the use of radar to monitor speed. And, while there may have been a precedent-setting court case in multiple States, how can I find such a case in my State? For starters, is what I am seeking deemed "Case Law"? And, where would I begin to find Case Law cases? If I could cite such a case, it would strengthen my argument in a similar situation. Thanks!
If you are seeking cases which address "full disclosure about the use of radar to monitor speed," I doubt you are going to find it. If you are looking for cases in which radar speed evidence was deemed to be admissible in your state, you'll need to tell us what state you're in. To provide one example, Connecticut's leading case is here. In many states, radar evidence was made admissible by judicial notice by a specific act of the legislature, so you won't necessarily find relevant case law for your state.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #35  
Old 11-05-2019, 11:04 AM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,328
Fighting a Radar Ticket

I would like to remind you that, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." If, like me, you believe that most posted speed limits are bullshit and want to consistently travel faster, getting a quality radar detector can save your hide on a consistent basis.

Better yet, get an anti-radar detector. Mine can disrupt radar long enough for me to slow down but not so long that the police can detect that their radar is being interfered with. That is actually an FCC violation and a federal offense, so you don't want an actual scrambler.
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin

Last edited by Jasmine; 11-05-2019 at 11:07 AM. Reason: URL error
  #36  
Old 11-06-2019, 12:44 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
Just shy of 38 years on the job between 2 careers. I have never lost a speeding case or had one tossed out. And when I was on the highway unit we used to use Kustom KR-11 aimed backwards. We would use our rear view mirrors to watch what vehicle was cresting a hill or coming around a curve. That should have been easy to beat in court but none of mine ever were.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
I would like to remind you that, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." If, like me, you believe that most posted speed limits are bullshit and want to consistently travel faster, getting a quality radar detector can save your hide on a consistent basis.
You have no idea how useless they are. Any officer that uses a radar unit is using the hold button feature (AKA 'instant on") that all units now have. Your detector will scream bloody murder for a moment but your speed is already locked in. If you're lucky you might get a warning while cars ahead of you are being zapped. But a seasoned officer is typically only activating his radar after observing a vehicle that is exceeding the speed limit past the officers determined tolerance (13-15 over around here).

All Lidar units use hold buttons. Detectors rarely detect laser while it's being used on cars ahead. Laser detectors are more useless than radar detectors. Most officers point the beam at a vehicles license plate. Even while your own car is being clocked there is a good chance your detector sitting on the dash or visor will remain silent as it can't see the beam from it's position.

Other devices, like VASCAR, are completely undetectable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
Better yet, get an anti-radar detector. Mine can disrupt radar long enough for me to slow down but not so long that the police can detect that their radar is being interfered with. That is actually an FCC violation and a federal offense, so you don't want an actual scrambler.
Uh huh. And what are you using to do this? If you mention Rocky Mountain Radar I'm going to laugh myself to death.

The only thing I've ever seen consistently block traffic radar was a linear amplifier rigged to a CB radio. This caused the radar units Radio Frequency Interference Indicator to the block the unit from taking readings. RFI Indicators are OEM on all units so defendants can't claim other sources caused a reading.

YMMV depending on location, but having the RFI Indicator on a radar unit prevent me from getting a reading on a particular car is not reasonable suspicion for me to stop that car. The same goes for laser jammers that reportedly only have limited success.

Last edited by pkbites; 11-06-2019 at 12:46 AM.
  #37  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:35 PM
Dag Otto is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Las Cruces
Posts: 5,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post

Laser detectors are more useless than radar detectors. Most officers point the beam at a vehicles license plate. Even while your own car is being clocked there is a good chance your detector sitting on the dash or visor will remain silent as it can't see the beam from it's position.
A long time ago I had a BEL radar/laser detector that was fantastic at detecting laser. In fact, it detected laser just about everywhere. Hell, it even detected laser inside my closed garage. POS would probably detect laser if it was smashed to pieces and dumped in a deep abandoned well. Yeah, I got my money back and haven't bothered with a detector since then.

I've had two tickets in the past ten years. The first one was ten years ago, 65 in a 55 zone. $60 ticket. The second one was two months ago. 44 in a 30 zone. $60 ticket. Pleasantly surprised with the lack of inflation with tickets in my area.

As for the OP, take it to traffic court. You will either be entertained listening to other people using the dumbest arguments and reasoning to fight a ticket, or you'll be providing entertainment for others.
  #38  
Old 11-10-2019, 01:09 PM
Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 465

Legal???


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
Fighting a Radar Ticket

I would like to remind you that, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." If, like me, you believe that most posted speed limits are bullshit and want to consistently travel faster, getting a quality radar detector can save your hide on a consistent basis.

Better yet, get an anti-radar detector. Mine can disrupt radar long enough for me to slow down but not so long that the police can detect that their radar is being interfered with. That is actually an FCC violation and a federal offense, so you don't want an actual scrambler.
Are those things legal? Most countries in Europe bust you you just for possession. By "most countries" I mean that I don't know one that doesn't.

And what about laser equipment? No warning there.
  #39  
Old 11-10-2019, 06:19 PM
JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brayne Ded View Post
Are those things legal? Most countries in Europe bust you you just for possession. By "most countries" I mean that I don't know one that doesn't.
Heck, any detectors are illegal in Virginia and DC (you'll see the road sign advising of that shortly behind (or right below/beside) the "Welcome to Virginia" one after you cross the Potomac).

Last edited by JRDelirious; 11-10-2019 at 06:20 PM.
  #40  
Old Yesterday, 12:32 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brayne Ded View Post
Are those things legal? Most countries in Europe bust you you just for possession. By "most countries" I mean that I don't know one that doesn't.
If you mean radar detectors, they are legal for private passenger vehicles in all states except Virginia and the District of Columbia. Under FCC rule they should be legal there too as they are nothing more than a radio receiver, but nobody wants to be a test case. They are illegal in commercial vehicles via federal law.

As far as the "anti-radar detector" Jasmine spoke of, they weren't specific as to what they meant. Generally it is illegal to have an active, broadcasting radar jammer. There is a company named Rocky Mountain Radar that sells a passive radar jammer. Every single test over the last 20 years has shown that none of RMR devices have any effect on police radar whatsoever at any speed or distance. You would get the same effect driving with a brick on your dash or visor. RMR continues to sell these devices with their false claims even though they have consistently been shown to be completely worthless. The company even has been fined for false claims and continues to sell their crap.

I wish Jasmine would come back and explain what device they are using that they claim works.

Quote:
https://www.radarbusters.com/Rocky-M...iew-s/2521.htm

Because of the publicity generated by Radar Roy’s $50,000 reward other national news outlets did their own investigations on Michael Churchman and his company Rocky Mountain Radar such as:

20/20 Investigation – Completely useless at jamming police radar.

Extra Investigation – RMR products were ineffective against any police radar.

American Journal Investigation – Failed at having any effect in jamming police radar.

CBS Good Morning - Totally useless in jamming radar.

Last edited by pkbites; Yesterday at 12:37 AM.
  #41  
Old 11-05-2019, 11:16 AM
am77494 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,837
I have always found that hiring a lawyer has been to my advantage. And the lawyer typically costs less than the ticket, the points , insurance rise etc. Most of the time the lawyer has asked for a jury trial and the case has been dismissed in pre-trial.
  #42  
Old 11-05-2019, 12:19 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by am77494 View Post
I have always found that hiring a lawyer has been to my advantage. And the lawyer typically costs less than the ticket, the points , insurance rise etc. Most of the time the lawyer has asked for a jury trial and the case has been dismissed in pre-trial.
Does the price of a lawyer at least give you second thoughts about running lights, speeding etc.?
  #43  
Old 11-05-2019, 12:30 PM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 33,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Does the price of a lawyer at least give you second thoughts about running lights, speeding etc.?
In Pennsylvania we have signs that make me wonder. "DRUNK DRIVING" with the red slash through it and under that "YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT".

To me it sounds like a challenge, and, honestly, most people can afford their first DUI.
  #44  
Old 11-06-2019, 11:42 AM
smithsb's Avatar
smithsb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: mid-Pacific
Posts: 2,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
In Pennsylvania we have signs that make me wonder. "DRUNK DRIVING" with the red slash through it and under that "YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT".

To me it sounds like a challenge, and, honestly, most people can afford their first DUI.
Or not. If you're in the military and even sniff a DUI, you're through. Currently my idiot grandson (who has a wife and two children) is awaiting separation from the Coast Guard because of a DUI while on temporary duty near New Orleans. He's got a lawyer in the DUI case (maybe get it reduce to driving too fast for conditions); his commander doesn't care.

Past case overseas. Our best ammunition sergeant was drunk, knew it, crawled into the back seat of his car to sleep it off. MPs investigated the car. He got tossed from the service (12 years in). Drunk, in the car, had the keys, DUI. Didn't matter that he was in the back seat sleeping.

tldr: If in the armed forces, you can't afford a DUI.
  #45  
Old 11-10-2019, 03:06 PM
MacTech is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 6,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
In Pennsylvania we have signs that make me wonder. "DRUNK DRIVING" with the red slash through it and under that "YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT".

To me it sounds like a challenge, and, honestly, most people can afford their first DUI.
Been driving for nearly 30 years (and boy am I tired... ; ) ) and have *NEVER* had a DUI, and I never will, just not worth the risk.

On the rare occasion I do have a drink, it's at home, and so late in the evening that I *KNOW* i'm not going to be going out anyway, I have *simulated* OUI in my racing games (Gran Turismo/Forza series) and have scientifically determined that I get impaired at around 1.5 16 oz beers, i'm clearly unable to hold my liquor.
__________________
Freakazoid> dumb, Dumb, DUMB!, NEVER tell the villain how to trap you in a cage!
Gutierrez> You probably shouldn't have helped us build it either...
F!> I know, DUMB!
  #46  
Old 11-05-2019, 11:51 AM
The Vorlon is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sol III
Posts: 2,251
As far as CT goes, Karma is a bitch--I recall that years ago, their staties started having medical problems, that ended up being traced to the habit of putting the energized radar gun in their laps while working, and toasting their wedding tackle.

Opps...
  #47  
Old 11-06-2019, 01:36 AM
EdelweissPirate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Portland, OR USA
Posts: 666
I was lased at 58 MPH in a 45-MPH zone in Madison, WI (the city proper) about two years ago. I was sincerely surprised to learn that the lidar unit showed that speed for me. I was speeding for sure, but maybe not quite that much.

I did my homework and went to court, where I met an assistant district attorney. (In Madison, if you plead not guilty, you then negotiate with an ADA). I asked when the lidar unit was last calibrated, and The ADA said that lidar units were calibrated daily by driving at a known speed and lasing stationary objects.

Now, I could have asked, ďhow do we know that the officer executed that procedure flawlessly on the day in question?Ē But I didnít.

Instead, I explained that, given my surprise at the lidar speed readout, I thought I should at least ask about calibration. But I made it clear that Iím no Atticus Finch and that I wouldnít be surprised if the lidar gun was squared away.

The ADA reduced the charge substantially, almost to the minimum. She was nicer and more reasonable than I had a right to expect.

I can see how this could get distorted in a telephone/friend-of-a-friend way to the point where it becomes, ďmy cousinís friend totally got out of a lidar ticket by asking when the gun was last calibrated.Ē

OP: ask the question and then, regardless of the answer, pay the ticket. And be a good sport about it.
  #48  
Old 11-06-2019, 03:56 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdelweissPirate View Post
I did my homework and went to court, where I met an assistant district attorney. (In Madison, if you plead not guilty, you then negotiate with an ADA). I asked when the lidar unit was last calibrated, and The ADA said that lidar units were calibrated daily by driving at a known speed and lasing stationary objects

Except thatís not calibration. Itís field testing. In the case of Radar field testing is done first with an internal check that the unit itself does, then with an external tuning fork.

Calibration is done by sending the Laser or radar unit in to the factory or authorized service supplier every 1-3 years and having the internal components calibrated. The laser unit or in the case of radar the Gunn oscillator is reset and tested.

Calibration and field testing are terms that people mistakenly use interchangibly.
  #49  
Old 11-06-2019, 07:42 AM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 25,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by am77494 View Post
I have always found that hiring a lawyer has been to my advantage. And the lawyer typically costs less than the ticket, the points , insurance rise etc. Most of the time the lawyer has asked for a jury trial and the case has been dismissed in pre-trial.
The only way you would know if the lawyer was advantageous is if you were able to take a large enough sampling of the outcomes with and without a lawyer. In my 22 years Iíve seen a pretty large sampling. The main advantage to having s lawyer is their cases are heard first. Other than that the deals they get are pretty much equal to what you get when you talk to the prosecutor directly. Although we do not have jury trials for traffic infractions the threat of going to trial would get the response of ďGreat more overtimeĒ and not a dismissal. I would never tell someone to not get a lawyer. In particular with minor traffic cases if you genuinely feel you are not guilty, if you are extremely apprehensive about the court system or if you do plan to go to trial. In my opinion if you are doing it to save money it will probably not work out for you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
In Pennsylvania we have signs that make me wonder. "DRUNK DRIVING" with the red slash through it and under that "YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT".

To me it sounds like a challenge, and, honestly, most people can afford their first DUI.
You can afford your first DUI because you have no other choice. But itís going to be really painful. As your neighbor to the east Iíve heard how painful. At least in NJ the courts act as agents for the Director of the DMV (NJMVC) and the fines and suspensions you get in court are all you get. In PA you have to deal with the court and then you get a PENNDOT hearing for even worse penalties. Itís definitely very painful to get a DUI in PA.
  #50  
Old 11-06-2019, 07:52 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 33,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
You can afford your first DUI because you have no other choice. But itís going to be really painful. As your neighbor to the east Iíve heard how painful. At least in NJ the courts act as agents for the Director of the DMV (NJMVC) and the fines and suspensions you get in court are all you get. In PA you have to deal with the court and then you get a PENNDOT hearing for even worse penalties. Itís definitely very painful to get a DUI in PA.
I've never had a DUI, and likely never will (although I've recently read about breathalyzer units unreliable results). My point is, I don't think taunting motorists with "you can't afford it" is an appropriate message.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017