Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Pics and Videos Priceless

The trooper was hiding right about where they begun the passing of the trucks, maybe a little before. So all he could have seen from his hiding place was a couple cars and a couple bikes passing a couple of slow moving trucks. He may have been able to get them going, IMO, 70mph before they were out of his line of site (trees helped hide him, and also helped hinder him).



With the fastest moving target argument, he cannot be sure which vehicle he was hitting. Which bike or which car was fastest? How can he write up the other 3 when he only had 1?



LIDAR.. Can he use that while travelling at a high rate of speed (over 80 at least), while navigating turns and watching out for oncoming cars? Since he was a ways back, he didn't have much time to hit each vehicle before they disappeared around the next corner. Can he hit each individual vehicle within about 600 yards while travelling at a high rate of speed? Maybe even operating the radio to tell someone that he's in pursuit of 4 vehicles. With the distance he was at, the LIDAR cone would have spread enough for John's detector to go off, even if the trooper was aiming at the rear license tag.



The money is better spent defending themselves in court than to just plead guilty. There are too many variables and what-ifs and unclear things for them to just bend over and take it. The lawyer will be able to get a copy of the tape before the trial (either before the December court date or after it when a new trial date is set)



But it could be enough to put a doubt in the judge/jury's mind about the conditions surrounding the time. That's all that's required to get them off.



There was no one near them. They overtook the tow truck in a safe manner, the oncoming car passed, and then they started to play around. They would have to be endangering other vehicles, which they were not because the oncoming car had cleared them and they had cleared the tow truck before they started to play. I didn't see a house along the side of the road until I came upon them pulled over, so there goes the property argument. Not a single vehicle came in the other direction before I came upon them pulled over.


Oh, and uh.... page THREE biatches!

Were you attempting to prevent them from passing by virtue of accelerating your car, even if you knew that you had no chance? If you were, that is drag racing.



Yes, it would, if it is apparent that you were in a contest with each other.



No, you have to be in a contest with each other. By admission, you were not merely driving along in your own bliss, you were messing around. As such, that constitutes drag racing.



Ok, but how close were you to each other? It's kind of hard to make a clear decision on this one way or the other without being there or watching the tape. My point is that if there is a tape, the judge and jury will see it for sure.....

There was mention that they were pretty much travelling in a group. The officer could argue that this was the average speed of the group, and as long as they remained grouped together, they would all have to maintain at least that speed....




hehe, well, don't believe everything the radar/lidar detector manufacturers tell you, ok? I have yet to see a lidar detector that actually identified a true lidar signal.

The faster the vehicle speed, the easier the speed measuring device can lock on to it (lidar or radar)

Lidar has the disadvantage in that the patrol vehicle must be stopped to use it. I imagine they could use some type of VASCAR system if they were measuring vehicle velocities that were exactly parallel to the patrol vehicle, but in that case the patrol vehicle could just pace them. Police speedometers are certified calibrated to be accurate, and therefore admissible in court.

Lidar doesn't have a cone, it has a beam. Radar has a cone.

In order for a lidar detector to work, it would have to have a sensor on your license plate. I have never seen one that does.



...if there is no tape. A video tape all but erases any doubt.... I'm not trying to screw them, just being realistic from my experiences in court.



Even so, they were still in close proximity to each other, and each other's vehicles. Therefore, they can be convicted of endangering each other and each other's property, and hence the reckless driving conviction.

That's assuming that he saw them long enough to tell that one wasn't pulling away from the other. And the way the bikes were described as speeding up and slowing down numerous times, the speed of the cars would remain constant but the speed of the bikes would change. I doubt they were accellerating at the exact same rate, so their speed would differ, and the trooper would be able to see that. He could not assume that they were travelling at the same average speed. He still only has 1 vehicle, or, at the very least, reasonable doubt has been introduced.

The only way that they were travelling in a group is that they had pulled away from the rest of the group, they weren't just going down the road 4 deep with the cruise control set. There were speed variations amongst the 4 vehicles.



Ok, semantics. The laser beam is described as a pin-point beam, but still has some divergence over a distance, about 3.5 feet wide at 1000 feet, smaller than radar, but still enough that it could set off a laser detector.

But since he had to be sitting still to get a measurement, he would not have gotten them at 100 from the position he was in. Hence it was RADAR. LIDAR is moot and the detector doesn't matter.

Speedo nor VASCAR should not be introduced into the argument (can we say red herring?)since "RADAR" was indicated on the citation, as Chris said towards the bottom of page 2.

Well, like I stated before, I wasn't there, and haven't viewed the video tape. I guess they will just have to call the ball for themselves. The oficer could mark radar on the citation as his initial reason to pursue the group, but could legally pace the group at a much higher speed and report that speed when writing the citation.



At that distance, the laser has dissapated in strength enought that even if a lidar detector actually worked, it would not likely pick up the signal. Even if it could, it would have to have an optical antenna aimed toward the rear of the car (assuming that was the direction from which the lidar was aimed).

speedo pacing, or a VASCAR system, is perfectly acceptable in court. I use speedo pacing all the time. I don't have a VASCAR system in my car, and a lot of departments are getting away from them. This is not because they are not admissable in court, rather they are very expensive to purchase, even more expensive to install and calibrate, and require special radar units to even function. When they are set up properly, they are actually more accurate than conventional methods of measuring the patrol car's speed in order to calculate the violator's speed. However, modern radar guns have improved to the point that negates the extra expense of VASCAR systems, and hence their decline. None of this is to suggest that they cannot be introduced as evidence.

So you weren't there, and you admit that the trooper made a judgement call, and could have left out important facts on the ticket, and you're telling them to admit guilt rather than having their day in court? That's some good advice.

edit: Oh, and add on the fact that they haven't seen the video and don't know exactly what's on it. But they still should just send in the fine and forget about it. Bare minimum -- have a lawyer look at the video.

I'm saying I wasn't there in order to find out exactly what happened. I'm asking if there is a video tape of the event, because if it exists, based on my experience with such evidence, they are screwed in any type of defense. Better in that case to talk to teh SA before the court date and ask for a lesser charge, and then beg the mercy of the court than to try to fight it, pay court costs and attorney fees on top of whatever fine is imposed and run the risk of additional charges being filed. That is my advice, take it or leave it.

There coming for you!!

I mean, really coming for you!