Speeding ticket question.

[CobraBallz97]

Hey everyone,
I unfortunately got pulled over the other day and received a speeding ticket. He was heading the opposide way on the road I was traveling on and claims to have clocked me at 66 in a 45. I am certain that I was doing slightly over 50mph and my radar did not alert me. He proceded to tell me that if I had only been doing 10 or 11mph over the limit he would have let me go with a warning.
My question is, can an officer get a number registered on his radar if he is driving towards me head on? I feel that he did not get a # on me and I was wondering if I have a chance to dispute this in court.
Thanks

 

[FordSVTFan]

Yes he can get a radar reading while driving toward you. Go to court and tell the judge you were only doing 50+ in a 45.

 

[fiveohpoepoe]

Many different options to get a speed. Opposite direction is just as common as stationary

 

[CobraBallz97]

Yes he can get a radar reading while driving toward you. Go to court and tell the judge you were only doing 50+ in a 45.

The offense is written on the ticket as, "Disobeyed speed limit sign. Top speed 66 in 45." The fine is $144. How can I tell the judge I was only doing 50 when 66 is on the ticket? Would I just be wasting my time trying to dispute this?

 

[exdeath]

Head on all you have to do is subtract your own speed from the radar. If you are doing 45 driving perfectly head on with your radar locked on the dash and it goes off showing 110, then it must have hit something coming 65 head on. What are they teaching in public schools these days?

I don't know why people find it hard to believe radar doesn't have to be stationary; better let the Navy and Air Force know about that.

Are you sure your speedometer is accurate? It's hard to believe a cop would go out of his way to flip a U and catch up for going 5 over, especially one who admits he'd have let you off at 10 over. A bike sitting on the side of the road tagging people at a speed trap sure, but not someone minding their own business going the opposite direction. Just saying.

 

[Iceman II]

Heck, moving radar has been around for a long time. I have been using it for twenty years. Rarely, do I set still and use stationary radar.
Like Adam said go to court and tell the judge you were doing 50+.

 

[FordSVTFan]

The offense is written on the ticket as, "Disobeyed speed limit sign. Top speed 66 in 45." The fine is $144. How can I tell the judge I was only doing 50 when 66 is on the ticket? Would I just be wasting my time trying to dispute this?

No, you can present your case and the officer will present his case. The will weight the testimony and credibility and rule.

 

[CobraBallz97]

Head on all you have to do is subtract your own speed from the radar. If you are doing 45 driving perfectly head on with your radar locked on the dash and it goes off showing 110, then it must have hit something coming 65 head on. What are they teaching in public schools these days?

I don't know why people find it hard to believe radar doesn't have to be stationary; better let the Navy and Air Force know about that.

Are you sure your speedometer is accurate? It's hard to believe a cop would go out of his way to flip a U and catch up for going 5 over, especially one who admits he'd have let you off at 10 over. A bike sitting on the side of the road tagging people at a speed trap sure, but not someone minding their own business going the opposite direction. Just saying.

First off, are you trying to insult my intelligence with the public scool comment? If so I don't believe it's necessary.

Second, who said it was hard to believe that radar doesn't have to be stationary? I was just asking a simple question, my main reason for asking the question was because my detector did not go off.

Finally, I am almost positive that my speedo is correct.

 

[Iceman II]

I suggest you better find out if your speedo is correct. It may save you some grief in the future. Also, almost positive is not going to cut it in court. Even if the speedo was off its still no excuse.

 

[exdeath]

First off, are you trying to insult my intelligence with the public scool comment? If so I don't believe it's necessary.

Second, who said it was hard to believe that radar doesn't have to be stationary? I was just asking a simple question, my main reason for asking the question was because my detector did not go off.

Finally, I am almost positive that my speedo is correct.

Nothing personal intended. Intelligence is not the same as simply not knowing something that someone else assumes is, or should be, common knowledge. Apologies. :beer:

I was just making a general observation that *everybody* seems to think radar has to be stationary, despite it being used on moving aircraft and war ships since the 1940s. It's just frequency and phase addition and subtraction that measures relative speed between two objects, regardless of one of the objects being stationary or not. eg: two cars going toward each other at 45 mph is going to register the same as a car going 90 mph toward a stationary target.

The wavelength from the emitter is already going to be compressed as soon as it leaves the radar gun, and register 45 mph from a moving car on a fixed object. It's compressed further when it bounces off a moving oncoming object. If you are moving at speed x, which is a speed limit, then you know the threshold of an oncoming car speeding is > 2x. And that's doing it in your head and not even considering computers or integration with the patrol car's computer and speed sensors, etc.

 

[snakebite6]

yes. he did not catch you on his radar gun. I did a ride along with a friend who was a cop and they have a screen that shows how fast people are going in the opposite direction. I have gotten pulled over that way too but i didnt get a ticket. :banana:

 

[FordSVTFan]

yes. he did not catch you on his radar gun. I did a ride along with a friend who was a cop and they have a screen that shows how fast people are going in the opposite direction. I have gotten pulled over that way too but i didnt get a ticket. :banana:

That screen is a radar readout from a second radar antenna.

 

[CobraBallz97]

Nothing personal intended. Intelligence is not the same as simply not knowing something that someone else assumes is, or should be, common knowledge. Apologies. :beer:

I was just making a general observation that *everybody* seems to think radar has to be stationary, despite it being used on moving aircraft and war ships since the 1940s. It's just frequency and phase addition and subtraction that measures relative speed between two objects, regardless of one of the objects being stationary or not. eg: two cars going toward each other at 45 mph is going to register the same as a car going 90 mph toward a stationary target.

The wavelength from the emitter is already going to be compressed as soon as it leaves the radar gun, and register 45 mph from a moving car on a fixed object. It's compressed further when it bounces off a moving oncoming object. If you are moving at speed x, which is a speed limit, then you know the threshold of an oncoming car speeding is > 2x. And that's doing it in your head and not even considering computers or integration with the patrol car's computer and speed sensors, etc.

Thank you for clearing that up. No worries :beer:
I'm leaning towards trying to fight it in court, nothing to lose I suppose.