Question about Police Lidar Standard Deviations

[gorcorps]

Thanks. If you have further details please provide it.

I was clocked going 73mph on a 55mph speed limit. I was not looking at the speedometer at the time so I don't know my actual speed. I was following the car ahead of me and cars usually go at the speed limit on this piece of the highway since police are always there!

I try to keep below 65mph all the time for fuel efficiency reasons. In this section of the road I keep AT the speed limit so 55mph. 73 mph is far too high.

My strategy is simple. First I will establish that I am an excellent driver with no previous violations. Next I will establish that I had no inventive or motive to speed, there's actually a disincentive for speeding (gas mileage)!

I will then show evidence that I was averaging far below the speed limit based on the time I left work, average time it takes to go from my chair to my car, and time it takes for my car to leave work and arrive at the spot I was LIDAR'd. I will provide written evidence form my boss on the time I left work since he was there the exact moment I left my chair. I will use google maps to show how I was averaging below the speed limit.

Finally I will bring up the LIDAR confidence interval defense. Because I had no incentive to speed, because I am a safe drive, and because of the possibility of false positives in LIDAR, there is reasonable doubt that I was going above the speed limit.

You sound exactly like that skinny weirdo from the big bang theory. And here I thought the way he tried to get out of a ticket was just made up for the show, but there really are people who think this way.

Face it, you were speeding (based on your story I see no evidence to the contrary since you admit you were just keeping with the flow of traffic)

Good luck

 

[Hacp]

If that is all you accomplish, you'll still be found guilty.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...between-a-criminal-case-and-a-civil-case.html

Speeding is a civil offense, so the burden of proof is 'more likely than not.' Reasonable doubt comes into play for criminal cases, which this

Thanks for the info. From the link it says person to person is civil while state vs person is criminal.

Looks like in my state the proof is preponderance of evidence like you said. But if I don't pay the ticket I'll get arrested!

 

[Hacp]

You sound exactly like that skinny weirdo from the big bang theory. And here I thought the way he tried to get out of a ticket was just made up for the show, but there really are people who think this way.

Face it, you were speeding (based on your story I see no evidence to the contrary since you admit you were just keeping with the flow of traffic)

Good luck

Sorry I don't watch the big bang theory. It's too tacky. I will leave this thread for now unless someone can volunteer some information.

 

[DaTT]

Thanks for the info. From the link it says person to person is civil while state vs person is criminal.

Looks like in my state the proof is preponderance of evidence like you said. But if I don't pay the ticket I'll get arrested!

Arrested for not paying a ticket? Seems harsh.

We get our license taken away until the ticket is paid after it defaults.

 

[Fritzo]

As I said, it is not my intent to prove the device is defective or that the operator (cop) didn't use it properly. It is my intention to show that even with everything working properly, it is likely that if an officer runs 40 readings a day he will catch 5 people in a month going 15 mph or whatever number faster than they were actually going. Numbers can change given actual data!

...and you'll have to prove that it happened in this case, in which they'll refer back to the certification of the device. The burden of proof will be on you since it's civil court and not criminal court. Like I said, your best bet is if the cop doesn't show up to court (which is a good 50/50 chance if he's been on the force for a while).

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Exactly! :thumbsup:


Traffic court is about collecting money for the most part. There are two stages, first you meet with a prosecutor. If you are polite and humble at this point you will almost certainly be offered a greatly reduced fine hopefully with no license-points attached. Be smart and take it.

Second stage is a trial where you end up if you turn down the plea they offered in stage one. Be advised that you will almost certainly be found guilty here and if you annoy the Judge (my bet is you will) the fine will be SUBSTANTIALLY higher then if you had just mailed it in plus court-costs.

This is exactly what you should do, as I said earlier these courts are under staffed and could care less about internet articles. What they do care about is getting the case done quick and fair. Showing up with a bunch of studies and random BS will either have them give up quickly or shut you down fast. Remember the judge had seen thousands of these cases he has heard everything you can imagine. Don't waste his or her time.

 

[sourceninja]

...

 

[SearchMaster]

Good luck. You're much (MUCH) more likely to win your case because the officer doesn't show up or because the judge takes mercy on you than either of the defenses you've presented here. If the judge gets the sense that you're being disrespectful in any way (wasting his time, insulting his intelligence, calling out the officer, etc.) then you're probably screwed but if you seem like a normally law-abiding citizen who was inadvertently going just a little too fast, you might get out of it.

 

[jlee]

Thanks for the info. From the link it says person to person is civil while state vs person is criminal.

Looks like in my state the proof is preponderance of evidence like you said. But if I don't pay the ticket I'll get arrested!

State vs person is criminal for crimes. It's civil for civil offenses.

As I said, it is not my intent to prove the device is defective or that the operator (cop) didn't use it properly. It is my intention to show that even with everything working properly, it is likely that if an officer runs 40 readings a day he will catch 5 people in a month going 15 mph or whatever number faster than they were actually going. Numbers can change given actual data!

No, it isn't.

Source: personal professional experience.

 

[repoman0]

I'm thinking about fighting a lidar ticket too, but it's really close to not worth the time. Plus, I was speeding, it's just that he clocked a guy who was passing me on the right and pulled me over for it. It was close to a quarter mile away so there's no way he could actually aim at me versus the guy who was passing me at the time... the gun would have just locked on to whatever it chose. The other guy hit his brakes when he saw the cop so I ended up being the faster one when he picked which car to nab.

It's zero license points for first offense in MA and a $235 ticket. 88 in a 65, I was probably realistically doing 80. Maybe I'll just pay it and hope to be moved out of this state before I get my next one ()

Then again the cop was a real disrespectful POS despite the fact that I was calm and respectful the whole time, which makes me want to fight it more. I hate obnoxious Massachusetts state troopers.

 

[jlee]

I'm thinking about fighting a lidar ticket too, but it's really close to not worth the time. Plus, I was speeding, it's just that he clocked a guy who was passing me on the right and pulled me over for it. It was close to a quarter mile away so there's no way he could actually aim at me versus the guy who was passing me at the time... the gun would have just locked on to whatever it chose. The other guy hit his brakes when he saw the cop so I ended up being the faster one when he picked which car to nab.

It's zero license points for first offense in MA and a $235 ticket. 88 in a 65, I was probably realistically doing 80. Maybe I'll just pay it and hope to be moved out of this state before I get my next one ()

Then again the cop was a real disrespectful POS despite the fact that I was calm and respectful the whole time, which makes me want to fight it more. I hate obnoxious Massachusetts state troopers.

LIDAR is quite precise. I could see that argument if it was radar.

 

[wetech]

And people think it's ridiculous that a police officer's witness of an event generally trumps the alleged violator's...

What would be priceless is if someone Anonymously Tips off the court that he said he's going to lie and he gets busted for perjury.

 

[clamum]

LOL. "I just know I wasn't speeding! I wasn't looking at my speedometer, so in reality I actually have no idea. Oh yeah, I was also just following the guy in front of me, and I am ASSUMING he was not speeding either, because, you know, reasons. NO ONE ever speeds on that piece of road!"

I hope this isn't a troll post and you actually try to come off all uppity and smart in the court and act like you're an innocent victim. I'm guessing the judge will more or less laugh in your face (as he should).

 

[repoman0]

LIDAR is quite precise. I could see that argument if it was radar.

Yeah, I know it is precise, but I don't think the cops ability to aim it would be that precise. I worked out that he'd have to aim within about 0.6 degrees to get me versus the other guy who was passing me.

At the time, my girlfriend and I were both confused about why he had decided to get me when there was another guy irresponsibly flying by on the right without even giving me a chance to move over, then I figured it out. I just don't know if I can convince the court that that's what happened because I have no real proof. And I'd have to admit I was doing 80, which I did to the cop at the time as well, so if they decide to make me pay for an 80 MPH ticket instead it's still only $80 savings for a whole wasted day .. no thanks.

 

[jlee]

Yeah, I know it is precise, but I don't think the cops ability to aim it would be that precise. I worked out that he'd have to aim within about 0.6 degrees to get me versus the other guy who was passing me.

At the time, my girlfriend and I were both confused about why he had decided to get me when there was another guy irresponsibly flying by on the right without even giving me a chance to move over, then I figured it out. I just don't know if I can convince the court that that's what happened because I have no real proof. And I'd have to admit I was doing 80, which I did to the cop at the time as well, so if they decide to make me pay for an 80 MPH ticket instead it's still only $80 savings for a whole wasted day .. no thanks.

I would be inclined to fight it as a matter of principle, but on the other hand I'd be hard pressed to give up a vacation day for $80.

 

[repoman0]

I would be inclined to fight it as a matter of principle, but on the other hand I'd be hard pressed to give up a vacation day for $80.

I've got a flexible schedule and really just need to work 80 hrs in 2 weeks, so I could easily make it happen with no vacation time. It's just that sitting around in a courtroom sounds pretty unappealing I think I will fight it just to see what happens. Apparently we have clerk magistrates here rather than judges, which sounds a lot less stressful.

I'll make a thread when I get the outcome to let AT know if that defense has a chance

 

[jtvang125]

Op, why don't you just own up to it. You said you don't know how fast you were going so there's good chance you were speeding. I strongly believe you were too because no one goes 55 in a 55 zone. I try to keep it at 5 over but often drift to 65 and even 70 before realizing it.

 

[zinfamous]

I looked online for Standard Deviations, Accuracies, and distribution curves for Lidar devices and I can't seem to find any. Anyone know of a paper/standard that establishes this? I can't believe companies don't publish this information. It is important!

First question: Have you ever been to traffic court?
Second Question: Do you think this argument, with data, is going to work?
Third question: LOL!

 

[zinfamous]

An officer doesn't pull over someone going below the speed limit on this radar. Again, reference the link on psychology peer reviewed studies.

I ignored posting this because of the first time you made this reference, but as you feel that it is somehow important, I now feel compelled to explain to you why it doesn't apply here.

The irreproducibility of these studies is not due to standard error between studies, but due to p-hacking and other types of common scientific fraud (long prevalent in this field) in the original studies being cited.

(as referenced in the article that you linked)
http://www.nature.com/news/replication-studies-bad-copy-1.10634

 

[Jaepheth]

It should also be pointed out that "beyond a reasonable doubt" only applies to crimes where the law says it does (felonies, murder, manslaughter, etc). Many smaller crimes only require a "preponderance of evidence" so simply introducing reasonable doubt will not be enough.

I predict that if the officer shows up it'll go like:
Judge: "Cop says you were speeding; LIDAR says you were speeding. Pay the Clerk *bang* Next case."

 

[zinfamous]

I am going to provide a well researched argument based on evidence I have gathered. I would hope the judge would appreciate that I am taking this seriously.

OK, this is a parody thread, right?

There can't be anyone with any life experience that thinks this way about traffic court, right?

 

[zinfamous]

It should also be pointed out that "beyond a reasonable doubt" only applies to crimes where the law says it does (felonies, murder, manslaughter, etc). Many smaller crimes only require a "preponderance of evidence" so simply introducing reasonable doubt will not be enough.

I predict that if the officer shows up it'll go like:
Judge: "Cop says you were speeding; LIDAR says you were speeding. Pay the Clerk *bang* Next case."

exactly. It's why I can't stop laughing.

 

[thomsbrain]

I've mentally learned to consider tickets a randomly-applied tax for road usage. Any sane and reasonable driver will still get a speeding ticket occasionally, and the system is set up with this as the intention. So just mentally consider it a lottery tax for driving, say "dang" when your number is up, and pay up.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

It should also be pointed out that "beyond a reasonable doubt" only applies to crimes where the law says it does (felonies, murder, manslaughter, etc). Many smaller crimes only require a "preponderance of evidence" so simply introducing reasonable doubt will not be enough.

I predict that if the officer shows up it'll go like:
Judge: "Cop says you were speeding; LIDAR says you were speeding. Pay the Clerk *bang* Next case."

The Judges I've been to were pretty forgiving but I do agree the instant charts get set up something like above will happen.
Its been a long time since I was in traffic court but I'd guess 3/4 of the people there were dismissed or had a poor record to begin with but had the fines reduced significantly. The rest were f'd.

 

[Matthiasa]

The only thing at fault might be the cop not also getting the person you were following...

As stated you would normally try to drive at 65 mph and not the limit of 55 mph. It is not hard to imagine you ending up at 73 mph with that being the case.