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