Speeding ticket : but you were not clocked !!!

[Nicksfix]

This has to go down as one of the dumbest laws Ohio has passed. I'm sorry,but this is one I would fight if I ever get pulled over.

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Ohioans are outraged over last week's Ohio Supreme Court decision that said a police officer could write speeding tickets just by looking at a vehicle and estimating how fast it is moving

Full article.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

What the hell? You know a state is low on money when..

 

[Northstar]

First:

"They can't tell a deer from a dead body and we are supposed to believe they can accurately estimate our speed?"

Did they actually mistake a deer for a dead body?

Second:
This law is absolute crap, it's essentially one's word vs. another's and they will always side with the cop. This just reeks of corruption as well as a cop could easily write the ticket for way faster than you were going.

 

[Terronium-12]

The justices' ruling said that no radar detector is needed for a speeding citation to stick, just a certificate showing the officer has been trained to make educated guesses on what a speedometer is reading.

Let's see...educated guess vs. factual evidence. The stupidest thing I've ever read.

 

[Public'sTwin]

This law is absolute crap, it's essentially one's word vs. another's and they will always side with the cop.

The funny thing is, most speeding tickets can be successfully fought even when the cop did use radar and clocked you. They can never be bothered to show up in court to fight tickets, and they don't care what you do once they've issued it.

The effect this whole thing is going to have, ironically, is a lot of court costs - which may even rival the general extra income this scheme had the potential to draw.

 

[Sage]

Innocent unless guessed guilty.

 

[Northstar]

The funny thing is, most speeding tickets can be successfully fought even when the cop did use radar and clocked you. They can never be bothered to show up in court to fight tickets, and they don't care what you do once they've issued it.

The effect this whole thing is going to have, ironically, is a lot of court costs - which may even rival the general extra income this scheme had the potential to draw.

In some states the issuing officer is legally required to appear at the hearing.

(I could be wrong on this though)

 

[Kylehnat]

Fortunately I have no plans to drive through Ohio. If I do, I might fly by at top speed, pull over, and ask him "how fast was that?"

 

[Famine]

My brother's speeding fine came about when he was clearly speeding but no accurate reading could be taken. The penalty he accepted in court was for speed limit +30mph - and you'd hope a trained highways officer can tell when a vehicle is going nearly 50% as fast again as the speed limit (when the reality was probably nearer 100%, but neither of them knew for sure).

The officer did have a radar, but no reading could be taken.

 

[Touring Mars]

I was under the impression that the UK operated a system like this i.e. the police are at liberty to pull over drivers that are clearly speeding, even without a radar. I can see the problem people may have with marginal decisions, but it seems to work fine here without too many problems (atleast I've never heard of any).

it's essentially one's word vs. another's and they will always side with the cop

Let's see...educated guess vs. factual evidence. The stupidest thing I've ever read.

Isn't this the case with many other crimes? If a policeman witnesses a fight, witnesses a street robbery or sees someone attack someone in the street (or is indeed attacked themselves), do they need to have CCTV camera footage as 'evidence'? Eyewitness testimony is evidence...

 

[boiltheocean]

EDIT: Ignore.

 

[Joel]

I think this won't be the huge deal it's being made out to be. It will only happen in cases like Famine mentioned, when the driver is blatantly and clearly over the limit, but no reading could be taken.

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

The funny thing is, most speeding tickets can be successfully fought even when the cop did use radar and clocked you. They can never be bothered to show up in court to fight tickets, and they don't care what you do once they've issued it.

The effect this whole thing is going to have, ironically, is a lot of court costs - which may even rival the general extra income this scheme had the potential to draw.

I have won EVERY speeding ticked that I have fought for that exact reason. If you ever get a speeding ticket, fight it.

If all else fails throw some algebra or trig their way about how tire sizes throw off a speedometer and they wont have a clue. Tell them you have different size tires other than stock, crunch some numbers on paper, and you are free.

 

[Famine]

Our magistrates would then ask why you could work that out after the fact, but not beforehand to prevent a speeding offence occurring, and give you a higher fine and more points for willful negligence.

 

[daan]

If you ever get a speeding ticket, fight it and you were speeding, take it like a man.

Fixed for you.

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

Our magistrates would then ask why you could work that out after the fact, but not beforehand to prevent a speeding offence occurring, and give you a higher fine and more points for willful negligence.

Luckily we dont have to worry about that where I live.

 

[FoolKiller]

Isn't this the case with many other crimes? If a policeman witnesses a fight, witnesses a street robbery or sees someone attack someone in the street (or is indeed attacked themselves), do they need to have CCTV camera footage as 'evidence'? Eyewitness testimony is evidence...

The problem is that in many states in the US the penalty for speeding is determined by how fast you were going over the limit. An officer witnessing a fight or a robbery doesn't have to guess whether it was assault or armed assault, he saw it. And presumably, when you are arrested that weapon will have been taken as evidence. The degree of the penalty is not based on a guess by the eyewitness.

And in Kentucky the issue can be huge based on a 5mph discrepancy. 0-20mph over the limit is a fine with an option to pay by mail (still pay court costs) and go to traffic school to prevent your record being affected. 21-25mph over the limit is a required court appearance and the traffic school option only applies if the judge decides it should. >25mph over the limit and the charge becomes reckless driving and the officer can arrest you on the spot and confiscate your license until your court date. This can also just be a ticket at the officer's discretion, but you still risk reckless driving charges and loss of license in court.

 

[DK]

This may sound like another stereotype but there has to be one racist tool who became a cop that is going to use this law just pull a person from a racial minority over and beat the crap out of them.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

The cars do have cameras you know.

 

[FoolKiller]

This may sound like another stereotype but there has to be one racist tool who became a cop that is going to use this law just pull a person from a racial minority over and beat the crap out of them.

Your thinking Arizona, but we are talking Ohio. That's in the north, bordering the Great Lakes.

 

[Famine]

The problem is that in many states in the US the penalty for speeding is determined by how fast you were going over the limit.

This is the same in the UK. You'll find that 101mph+ in a 70mph zone is an automatic ban (though magistrates retain the option to give points rather than the ban) and a £500+ fine. Up to 100mph in that zone is generally points (though magistrates retain the option to give a ban rather than points) and a fine of up to £500.

In my brother's case, it's likely that his true speed was something like 145mph, but there was no accurate reading (something about an Ariel Atom is not laser-friendly). The case was heard by magistrates and in the absence of an accurate reading - just an officer's opinion of speeding with no numbers. Unlike some, my brother chose to say that, yes, he was speeding but couldn't remember the exact speed in question due to personal issues meaning he wasn't in a suitable state of mind (he later told me that he had been doing some considerable speed, saw the copper and thought "🤬 him" and sped up - the speed quoted above is merely my best guess on his description and shouldn't be taken as accurate). The magistrates sided with his account of events, but agreed that a speeding offence had occurred and gave him a conviction for SP30 - excess speed in an national speed limit zone - with 6 points on his licence and a £500 fine. The speed was given as exactly 100mph (see above).

So in this case the eyewitness could have made a pretty good guess for his precise speed but legally could only offer his opinion that the speed was excess for the limit.

We also have a guideline in force in the UK from the Association of Chief Police Officers that no-one should be charged for any speed of up to the speed limit +10% +2mph (30 limit = 35mph; 40 limit = 46mph; 70 limit = 79mph. So you can peg your cruise at that speed on your satnav and clip past coppers with impugnity (a fact not known to anyone on the A1 two weekends since, as they saw a panda car and all stamped on the brakes to 69mph. I passed him in my bright red phallus-substitute and dragged an otherwise cowardly Audi TT with me - I'm always the guy that passes the police car at whatever speed I happen to be doing rather than stamp on the brakes). It is however, just a guideline, not a rule.

So to get to court in the first place, you need an opinion from a police officer that you're doing at least 80mph - and most forces will completely ignore you to 85mph. It's actually quite rare to see a case based on an opinion of speeding rather than evidence of it, and it generally happens in cases where the speed is north of 100mph. Which, I think you'll agree, is a speed even the dullest highways-trained copper should be able to judge...


A key difference, I note, is that you only lose your licence once magistrates decide that you do, not from the instance of the offence. The police cannot judge an offence has occurred, only that they suspect one has. It is for a court of your peers (in this case a magistrate's court, rather than a trial-by-jury) to decide that and your punishment, if any.

The exception is speed camera offences. Which are kinda clear-cut.

 

[DK]

Your thinking Arizona, but we are talking Ohio. That's in the north, bordering the Great Lakes.

I'm pretty sure there's at least one racist in Ohio. And yes, I know Ohio is in the north. That A in Geography I got isn't for nothing...although in my country geography would be closer to geology.

 

[hambone8611]

This is the same in the UK. You'll find that 101mph+ in a 70mph zone is an automatic ban (though magistrates retain the option to give points rather than the ban) and a £500+ fine. Up to 100mph in that zone is generally points (though magistrates retain the option to give a ban rather than points) and a fine of up to £500.

In my brother's case, it's likely that his true speed was something like 145mph, but there was no accurate reading (something about an Ariel Atom is not laser-friendly). The case was heard by magistrates and in the absence of an accurate reading - just an officer's opinion of speeding with no numbers. Unlike some, my brother chose to say that, yes, he was speeding but couldn't remember the exact speed in question due to personal issues meaning he wasn't in a suitable state of mind (he later told me that he had been doing some considerable speed, saw the copper and thought "🤬 him" and sped up - the speed quoted above is merely my best guess on his description and shouldn't be taken as accurate). The magistrates sided with his account of events, but agreed that a speeding offence had occurred and gave him a conviction for SP30 - excess speed in an national speed limit zone - with 6 points on his licence and a £500 fine. The speed was given as exactly 100mph (see above).

So in this case the eyewitness could have made a pretty good guess for his precise speed but legally could only offer his opinion that the speed was excess for the limit.

We also have a guideline in force in the UK from the Association of Chief Police Officers that no-one should be charged for any speed of up to the speed limit +10% +2mph (30 limit = 35mph; 40 limit = 46mph; 70 limit = 79mph. So you can peg your cruise at that speed on your satnav and clip past coppers with impugnity (a fact not known to anyone on the A1 two weekends since, as they saw a panda car and all stamped on the brakes to 69mph. I passed him in my bright red phallus-substitute and dragged an otherwise cowardly Audi TT with me - I'm always the guy that passes the police car at whatever speed I happen to be doing rather than stamp on the brakes). It is however, just a guideline, not a rule.

So to get to court in the first place, you need an opinion from a police officer that you're doing at least 80mph - and most forces will completely ignore you to 85mph. It's actually quite rare to see a case based on an opinion of speeding rather than evidence of it, and it generally happens in cases where the speed is north of 100mph. Which, I think you'll agree, is a speed even the dullest highways-trained copper should be able to judge...


A key difference, I note, is that you only lose your licence once magistrates decide that you do, not from the instance of the offence. The police cannot judge an offence has occurred, only that they suspect one has. It is for a court of your peers (in this case a magistrate's court, rather than a trial-by-jury) to decide that and your punishment, if any.

The exception is speed camera offences. Which are kinda clear-cut.

I’m pretty sure I’d get along with your brother and your stock just went up in my eyes to.

 

[Joey D]

The funny thing is, most speeding tickets can be successfully fought even when the cop did use radar and clocked you. They can never be bothered to show up in court to fight tickets, and they don't care what you do once they've issued it.

Here in Michigan the officer gets overtime if they show up to court, which they typically do. However, most of the time if you show up to court they will reduce the offence or change the offence to a citation without points. I've gotten out of numerous tickets that way.

On the topic, it's Ohio, I'm not surprised. They've been giving tickets to vehicles with Michigan plates for years without ever clocking you on the radar so why not just extend it to the whole state? As a Michigander I'm required by law to hate Ohio and this is just one more thing that makes it's just a huge land mass that prevents me from going anywhere else of interest .

 

[Temporal]

I obtained 6 points and a £200 fine in 2008 based on the fact that a police officer followed the car behind me therefore also me for a mile or so and wrote my registration and "110mph" on a piece of paper.

Cheeky police officer then pulled alongside and the officer in the passenger seat mouthed "Slow down" whilst making downward movements with his hand leading me to believe I'd got away with it.

And then the NIP arrived two days later 👎

 

[Famine]

Yeah, but you missed seeing a fully-liveried Volvo T5 on the widest, straightest part of motorway in the British Isles...

 

[Jondot]

We also have a guideline in force in the UK from the Association of Chief Police Officers that no-one should be charged for any speed of up to the speed limit +10% +2mph (30 limit = 35mph; 40 limit = 46mph; 70 limit = 79mph. So you can peg your cruise at that speed on your satnav and clip past coppers with impugnity (a fact not known to anyone on the A1 two weekends since, as they saw a panda car and all stamped on the brakes to 69mph. I passed him in my bright red phallus-substitute and dragged an otherwise cowardly Audi TT with me - I'm always the guy that passes the police car at whatever speed I happen to be doing rather than stamp on the brakes). It is however, just a guideline, not a rule.

Mmm, I do that, albeit at 76 (on the basis of 10% - 1mph). Never fails to amuse me.

 

[homeforsummer]

Much more infuriating are the goits who stamp on the brakes for those motorway patrol 4x4s - the ones with the black and yellow patches rather than blue and yellow. You can tell from half a mile off that they aren't police cars but still some people crawl past them like their life depends on it.

They can report your for dangerous driving, but then so can any member of the public.

I've never been caught speeding, either by camera or a patrol car. But then I don't really tend to speed and if I do it's usually only for short bursts, such as when overtaking.

But then my car isn't much fun on the motorway. I tend to stick to about 65 because that speed is quiet enough to listen to the stereo or have a conversation. If I have a passenger, obviously. But between uni and home the difference between me doing 65 the whole way and not getting held up by anything, or doing 80 and having to constantly slow down and get frustrated at things is about ten minutes over 90-odd miles. Not really worth the extra 15mph and the 5-10mpg less my car would do at those sustained speeds.

 

[Temporal]

Yeah, but you missed seeing a fully-liveried Volvo T5 on the widest, straightest part of motorway in the British Isles...

There was a Megane in the way

 

[Nicksfix]

Some say this is what this new law stemmed from.

Court document , I find it interesting what the eighth district said about it.