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.
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.
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.
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.
