|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Apr 30, 2009 19:43:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Apr 30, 2009 20:12:53 GMT -5
It has been about a year that the new PD forums have been up and running. Since TNG started NorCal, I haven't posted there since.......it is absolutely crazy!@?!!&
Anyway, thanks for posting this (I'll warn my friends/family). I don't take the freeway and don't speed either. Too many people for too long have used the freeway as a free for all and the space (safe zone) between cars, the one we learn about getting our licenses, are all but null and void.
I think it is about time and since we are as good as our tools, more power to the CHP!!
|
|
mrbose
Senior Member
Posts: 898
|
Post by mrbose on Apr 30, 2009 20:33:11 GMT -5
Went to Ukiah on Tuesday and stayed in the slow lane on this portion of 101 there were two of us doing 55 me and the guy that was trying to get me to tow him. Slow down people ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on May 2, 2009 15:16:33 GMT -5
I admit, in my heart I still feel like:
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on May 3, 2009 13:19:19 GMT -5
FWIW I posted a cogent response in that PeeDee thread.
But, I also was not even looking in there for over a month as their site gave me a particularly odious bit of malware that took some pretty serious intervention to get rid of.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Avenger on May 3, 2009 16:14:41 GMT -5
The paper itself is a steaming piece of crap.
Why should we expect the electronic version to be any better?
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on May 4, 2009 8:42:02 GMT -5
FWIW I posted a cogent response in that PeeDee thread.
But, I also was not even looking in there for over a month as their site gave me a particularly odious bit of malware that took some pretty serious intervention to get rid of. I did see that (after I'd posted here) and thought you did a great job of responding. I tried to log on a couple of times to the PD site, and my computer went into the [glow=red,2,300]warning [/glow]mode. I wonder why the PD hasn't cleaned up all of the threats (malware etc)? It's been that way for a LONG time, even when we were posting there. |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on May 4, 2009 11:31:21 GMT -5
This is the story you linked to:
[liInvalidStoryKey] (SR,20090430,ARTICLES,904309921,AR). [liInvalidStoryKey] (SR,20090430,ARTICLES,904309921,AR). [liInvalidStoryKey] (SR,20090430,ARTICLES,904309921,AR).
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on May 4, 2009 12:29:56 GMT -5
This is the story you linked to: [liInvalidStoryKey] (SR,20090430,ARTICLES,904309921,AR). [liInvalidStoryKey] (SR,20090430,ARTICLES,904309921,AR). [liInvalidStoryKey] (SR,20090430,ARTICLES,904309921,AR). You are right, for today anyway. The link was working when I posted it I always double check. I did notice when I went back to read the story the PD had added more to it including the LIDAR information which wasn't in the original article, so I assume the link I'd posted originally became invalid. Here you go (again): www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20090501/ARTICLES/904309921 |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on May 4, 2009 13:22:29 GMT -5
You only made two mistakes TBD, you forgot section B, which states
(B) Not more than one-half of a mile of uninterrupted length. Interruptions shall include official traffic control signals as defined in Section 445.
And also that an officer whose primary purpose is traffic must be in Uniform and a Marked Vehicle. Standing on the over pass does not qualify as a plainly marked vehicle. Now if a dectective were standing up there, since traffic is not his primary duty, it might stand up. But this was obviously not the case.
Califorina Vehicle Code: 40804(b) An officer arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, a person so charged while on duty for the exclusive or main purpose of enforcing the provisions of Divisions 10 (commencing with Section 20000) and 11 (commencing with Section 21000) is incompetent as a witness if at the time of that arrest he was not wearing a distinctive uniform, or was using a motor vehicle not painted the distinctive color specified by the commissioner.
I take that to mean that tickets issued from the measurements of an airplane and standing on an overpass to be speed traps. The court agrees on the airplane tickets. I wonder what they will say about standing on an overpass, probably the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on May 4, 2009 14:00:22 GMT -5
Please help me understand how this is germane to your argument that an officer on an overpass shooting LIDAR on the freeway constitutes a speed trap.
The officer on the overpass was in a uniform. Some of the comments on the thread in question noted that they had seen the officer standing there. That makes your argument largely moot. The vehicle code requires a marked vehicle, but makes absolutely no mandate that the officer has to be in that vehicle to make the observartion. You would also note that the officer actually writing the ticket is in uniform and in a marked vehicle... thus satisfying the requirements of the Vehicle Code.
You are overthinking the exercise and applying standards incorrectly to suit your argument.
Please show me the case law where citations issued on California freeways have been invalidated because the officer who made the observation was in an airplane and said observation constituted a "speed trap". Any freeway that is being enforced by airplane has to have signs posted to that effect. That is your fair warning. And you would also notice that at every entrance by road into the county, and periodically throughout, there are white signs with black letters that note "speed enforced by radar county wide". LIDAR is radar by a different method of measurement. Those signs to constitute fair warning.
All that leaves you as a defense is to attack the engineering survey or the veracity of the radar operator... eg that he or she is not currently trained, which with CHP is exceptionally unlikely.
California law allows one officer to make an observation and to notify a second officer who makes the stop and issues the ticket on the observing officers behalf. I did that more than once over the years and it wasn't a speed trap.
My advice... don't exceed the limit in the posted construction zones on 101. I would doubt very seriously if you will win the speed trap argument in court should you get pinched.
|
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on May 4, 2009 15:00:17 GMT -5
You may be correct in that it does not matter if the traffic stop was a speed trap or not in traffic court. The only way to truly find out is to litigate the case, which will cost money. However, I believe this to be a speed trap. The officer is not clearly visible. You cannot readily determine it is an officer without endangering traffic. And, no vehicle.
Will you win in traffic court? Nope. Most speed traps are not determined there, they are determined in higher courts. And air craft are speed traps, as defined in a decision in our courts. Even if the roads are clearly marked patrolled by aircraft. Why, because there is no way for the aircraft to follow the vehicle and match speed, the instrumentation of the plane does not do this.
Personally, I believe that the officer must be in a clearly marked vehicle. They must also be visible to the driver. This one could possibly be thrown out, provided someone pushed the case.
I am stating my opinion based on what I have read about only. Also, if no engineering and traffic survey has been done within 5 years, it is a speed trap. But, again, that is on you to find out and it probably will have to be decided in a court other then traffic court. Again, costing you money.
|
|
