Quote:
Originally posted by svxistentialist
Chris, they screwed you good on this one. If you were doing 48 mph, you would have covered 100 feet in approx 1.8939 secs.
This number is remarkably similar to the value in the second box, 0.019. It is only wrong by a factor of one hundred.
If this is the measurement in seconds over 100 feet, it implies you were doing 4800 mph. If instead this is the time measurement for covering 5 feet, as the first box might imply, then your speed is one twentieth of this value, or 240 mph.
Did you not have a lawyer? If these guys are mathematically incompetent, you are entitled to be let off on a technicality. None of these values indicate 48mph
Joe
|
Ahh, Joe, I did get a (pretty bogus) explanation on that one. The 5'//.019 is a reference to the distance I was times (either 5 feet using an automated system -- or -- .019 miles (100 feet) using the stopwatch method). Testimony revealed I was timed over 100 feet (something I already knew but didn't let on). The officer never did fill in the time it took me to cover that 100 feet distance. That was the main point of my argument. That there was no way to mathmatically verify the accusation made by the officer. The magistrate did seem to contimplate it for a moment. He then read from the PA vehicle code which states that (other than pertinent identification information) all that must be present on the citation is the posted speed limit and the speed at which I was allegidely traveling. The magistrate said it would be "good practice" for the officer to fill in all blanks, and that indeed an error was mane--not a fatal error, though. He then went on about speed enforcement being a "very mechanical system" and the officer fulfilled his burdeon of proof when he handwrote "35/48 ". Bunch of crap if you ask me. No I didn't have a lawyer. I felt I understood all the points of law. And now I understand just how badly I got screwed. It basically came down to his word against mine. So what if he couldn't back up his speed measurement. HA!