John Row

Does anyone know what the rules are for a Visual Estimation of Speed? We were stopped a week ago and given a ticket for "Following too close".

The CHP said he could have given us a ticket for 90+mph, base on his "Visual Estimation of Speed". (We were playing a Viper and 90 would have been conservative.) When he stuck his head in the car he saw the V1 (he didn't have his radar on) so I figure he decided he might not win the speed.

Glasman66

I don't know how the training work, but I do know that if you take it to court it woun't hold up without another form of evidnece backing it up

Alchemist

GS 163

Sounds like :bs .

Hurricane_777

"Visual Estimation of Speed" is probably why he didn't give you a speeding ticket. He had no back :cheers: . He's got better luck with the following to close or careless driving, as they are by nature more subjective.

Mike_88Z51

They just had a news report on "Visual Estimation of Speed" last week. Basically, in California a CHP or other law enforcement officer who has been working traffic for a long enough period of time is considered a sort of "field expert" at estimating vehicle speed. The courts in CA "assume" the officer to be accurate within 3 mph plus or minus. I believe the minimum time on the job requirement is 2-3 years, but don't quote it as fact until we hear from a lawyer or officer of the law.

In essence, the court system is finding another way to get your money. If the officer cannot back up his claim with real evidence "Visual Estimation of Speed" can be used to fine you. There is no legal test or qualification required to validate the ability of the officer to be accurate and it really boils down to the judge's decision to accept the cop's word against yours. Without corroborating evidence (radar readout, another officer) there really is no case against you.

A good lawyer can usually get you out of it, but it tends to cost you one way or the other. Most people don't fight it because the cops lowball you so you think you are gettng off easy. Your case is typical. You admit 90 was conservative. If he had ticketed you he would have said 90+ but written the ticket for 85 in a 70 or 65 zone. (They like to keep you 15 mph above the posted limit if possible.) You would have been less likely to fight it knowing you were going much faster. You pay for the ticket at 85 mph thinking you are getting away with actually doing 100+, when in fact they can't PROVE anything, so the court gets you for 85 without a solid case.

If you go to court and ask the right questions you can probably get out of the "following too close" ticket. What speed was this supposed to be at? What is the distance that is acceptable for that speed? How was this distance measured? If you were following too close for 90+ mph why weren't you given a ticket for speeding? If the officer wasn't able to accurately estimate your speed by visual means, then how can he have made an accurate estimate of the distance required for you to be following the car in front? Break down the officer's case step by step. I'm guessing there was no radar and no photo evidence from the CHP cruiser. He knows that you know you are guilty of something and he is counting on that. You could probably walk.


[Modified by Mike_88Z51, 4:46 AM 7/4/2002]

Bones LT1

He gave you a break! Lucky man.

ittlfly

Refering to Mike 88Z51 post, well speaking as a retired CHP (32yrs), some of what he said is right and some dead wrong. I've been to court many times on a "not guilty" plea speeding ticket. It is always good if I had a radar cite to back me up. However, I have testified to "odometer clocks" and the courts simply love that method. That's the next best thing to a "bumper clock". As for the estimation cite, that's a bit more tricky. If the officer has "been around " awhile, he can answer any question that the defendant might pose. And I do agree that I always wrote for less than the est. speed as " any doubt goes to the runner". That way it gave the "customer " every benifit of the doubt. So if you get a ticket for doing 70 when you were estimated at 90, consider yourself lucky. It also makes up for all the times that you didn't get caught and deserved "a little something"....it all evens out. Just my $.02 worth.

John Row

Your kind scolding is well received. The ticket had the desired effect, my wife now gets a worried look on her face at 76MPH!

I know we got the "too close" ticket only because the Bright Red Viper caught the attention of the officer. He was running away from us. He spotted the light bar before we did and slowed way down. I had just said to my wife "You better slow down" and 5 seconds later we were lit-up. The officer couldn't have spotted us (Viper and Vette) more than 30 seconds prior to that.

So my real question is What is "Following Too Close". As a CHP, you know that 1 car length per 10MPH is impossible on CA highways. Most of the time 3-4 car lengths at 70MPH is impossible. Someone will see a gap that big and pull into it.

Thanks,

enhance

I totally agree on that gap thing. Especially here in the bay area if there is enough room for a car to pull in front of you it will. I keep my gaps very close, so I guess I follow to close all the time.


[Modified by enhance, 10:08 AM 7/10/2002]

ittlfly

I really didn't mean it as a "scolding" but rather as some insight as to how things work in the real world. So please don't take offense as none was intended.
As far as the "following to close" issue is concerned, you are right. In the make believe world, 1 car lenght for every 10 mph. In the real world, you just need to keep yourself from being "found at fault" if the guy ahead slams on his brakes and you rear end him. It becomes subjective for the officer on when to cite as litterly everyone is following to close. (trying to keep the next guy from slipping in just ahead of you). In all honesty, it is easier to beat that kind of ticket than a speeding ticket. I can remember writting one to a guy that you couldn't slip my pinch book between his front bumper and the guy ahead of him rear bumper. That's a slam dunk. Short of that it becomes subjective in todays "real world"....

_Nomad_

[rant]
I wish more tickets were written for people “following too close”. I hate tailgaters with a passion! I understand and agree with the whole, “if there is room someone might slip in front of you” thing but, seriously, there are many times when that argument just doesn’t cut it and tailgating is tailgating. If someone slips in front of you…fall back more, yes, it’s a PITA but if it bothers you then change lanes and pass them. Basically, if you are not on a multi-lane interstate where traffic is doing 70 or 80 and there is no room to maneuver then you should not be able to use the excuse that “someone might slip in front of me”. In any other case it’s just plain tailgating.

[/rant] :lol:

Rick86

Can we use this method to bench race cars :jester

I think my car looks faster than yours :smash:

John Row

ittlfly: No offense taken:cheers:.

The^Nomad: I don't believe we were any closer to any other car than normal, I get really antsy when my wife gets too close for my comfort. So she says she avoids that dagger stare in her right ear :mad .

My feeling is if you're going to ticket us for speed, give us the ticket we probably deserve it. If you feel necessary to stop us to tell us to slow down, I'll say "Thank You for the warning and we'll slow down". Don't give us a ticket on a bogus charge just because there is a need to flex authority and you're unable to do your job properly for whatever reason (and we're driving a Red Corvette).

Thanks all... End of Thread!

BTW: This is my wife's first moving violation in over 35 years of driving.

ittlfly

Amen!